Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 12

sales [of real estate by lottery in Japan]

I was reading about real estates sales in Japan and how when there are multiple buyers for the same unit, the developer would use a lottery to randomly select a buyer[1]. Wouldn't it make more sense to run an auction-type system where the buyer with the highest bid is selected? Presumably that would yield a much higher sales price. Mũeller (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Presumably most buyers would not even try to bid with a high perspective to be outbiddet. Additionally auctions are regulated in many countries, so you need a professional, licensed auctioneer or agency which usually claim a fixed percentage of the auction result as their payment. Besides that real estate professionals usually know very exactly how high they can try to sell, so they dont want to waste money on auctioneers. Besides they are usually hired themselves to organize the sale for the owner, so they only have a minor percentage as payment for themselves which they likely dont want to split if they dont have to. --Kharon (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

By "an auction-type system", I mean how 99% of all residential real estate transactions are conducted in the West[2]: each buyer makes an offer to the seller, and the seller selects the highest bid. AFAIK there's no auctioneer involved here to take a cut. Mũeller (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

An auction-type system (buyers making an offer or sellers slowly lowering the price until a buyer shows up) may be common, but 99% of the cases may be overstating it. In particular when dealing with new housing, when people buy from a developer instead of from the previous occupant, the municipality (in particular those with a leftish municipal council) may have set a maximum price even before building began. It's in the interest of voters who currently rent a place but want to buy something that the price remains low. In this case, a lottery or first-come-first-served (with a single waiting list for all social housing development in the municipality) makes a lot of sense. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Judging by that link "the West" has real estate agents the same as we have estate agents. Do these not charge a commission? Or are sales largely conducted online? Even so, I would expect the website to take a cut. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation of The Order of Things

Who translated Michel Foucault's The Order of Things from French into English? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The book doesn't say.[3][4] A web search turned up two people's names in this query and the linked followups, but nothing that looks reliable. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times review of the first English-language edition, in 1971, states the following: "The translator (whom, with maddening disregard for human effort and responsibility, the publisher leaves anonymous)". See the full review here: [5]. A bit more searching led to this page posted by Alan Sheridan where he claims to be the translator (among a list of other books he has translated). [6] --Xuxl (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"May the road rise to meet you" and other "traditional Irish" blessings

Hi! Over at German Wikipedia, we have a page on this topic and I am asking myself whether this could be a case of an invented tradition. Can you help me trace the roots of the poem/song/blessing "May the road rise to meet you" and the term "traditional Irish blessing" to a reliable source? Like, really reliable. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, a thorough trawl of Google failed to find any really reliable source but...

In respect of the first phrase, a poster at the Irish Translation Forum says: "Go n-éirí an bóthar leat" DOES NOT mean "May the road rise to meet you". That is the most infamous mistranslation of Irish to English.... it means "May you have a successful journey" - literally "May the road succeed with you".

For the text of the full poem, in reply to the same question at Quora, a poster claims that "it was made up by an Episcopal Youth Minister, Rev. Richard Krejcir at All Saints Church, Carmel, California, in 1982 for a youth Irish party and dance, evangelism event in at The Mission Ranch Restaurant... He took Numbers 6:24 and merged it with a Celtic blessing". Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The same (unreferenced) etymology is given for Rise (Public Image Ltd song) LongHairedFop (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Irish proverb: "If the road rises to meet you, you know you've drunk too much Guinness". Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

But, I trust, not so much as to break any kind of record.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

An old story, that you know you've had too much to drink when that concrete wall you've been trying to climb over turns out to be a curb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but California? The land of remakes? Episcopalian? 1982? The Church whose main source of income is selling its churches to become mosques? A "youth minister (!)"?

Next we'll be hearing that shamrocks are native to San Diego, and that the last name Garcia is actually Black Irish. Lets have some independent RS for corroboration on this fairytale. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadly User:Medeis, there seem to be none. However, have a look at When Irish Eyes Are Smiling for some more fake Irishness. Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How does a song written by Chauncey Olcott (and George Graff, Jr., of unknown-to-WP nationality) and made famous by John McCormack become fake because it was written in America? When my mother (born in America) cooks a whole dinner of Rusyn cuisine in the US, is it fake? Is Jackie Mason a fake Jew? Was Sonny Davis Jr. a fake African, and a fake Jew?

I begin to feel like Christopher Hitchens, who was asked as he crossed the Republican and Northern Irish border if he was Catholic or Protestant. Upon replying "atheist" he was asked, "Yeah, but Catholic atheist, or Protestant atheist?" Where are the "race is a construct" crowd when you need them? μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a line from Finian's Rainbow: "What does America have more of than Ireland?" ... "Irishmen?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's a song from an Irish Rovers album, containing that expression.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Alansplodge! It really seems to be an invented tradition. --Gnom (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well leaving out the road as in 'Go n-éirí leat' is a good wish too so you can see it doesn't really relate to the road but the person. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way the Languages reference desk would have been much better for this. Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Languages, Dmcq? My question concerns history and theology, this is why I posted it here... --Gnom (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Theology? Dia is Muire duit might be scraping towards theology but hardly Go n-éirí an bóthar leat. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, yes all those 'Irish Blessings' that are put onto tea towels and suchlike are like a modern day Santa Claus going Ho ho ho. Like that though there is a long history of protection prayers and blessings as in Lorica (prayer) and probably long before. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

November 13

Baby boom in Arizona after D-backs championship

D-backs has the most exciting finish to the World Series championship. Trailing 2-1 in the bottom of the ninth inning against the Yankees in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, the D-backs scored one in that inning to tie it up, and a game-winning RBI in the same inning that immediately ended with World Series champions, exciting the fans. It is said to be the highest excitement among the fans ever when watching them win the World Series. As a result, it must've been baby boom in Arizona in late July and early August 2002, but I didn't find any coverage of it. I believe that this dramatic championship may have temporarily increased the birthrate in the state of Arizona by as much as 10%, leading to the increase of attendance in Arizona high schools in 2016. What do you guys think of those, including an estimated 10% increase in birthrate? PlanetStar 04:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I googled "arizona population estimates 2000s" and this[8] is one item that came up. If you compare the estimates for each year, you might be able to discern whether there was a significant spike in 2002. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The change in birthrates in a particular three-week period would not significantly increase the population while not producing a spike in population for just one year alone. I looked it up but I don't see a significant spike in birthrate in 2002; there would only be a minor spike in July and August. If I look at month-by-month birthrate data in 2002, which would be hard to find, I should see a slight increase in July and August than otherwise would be if D-backs didn't win the pennant and championship in 2001. PlanetStar 04:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I first heard this kind of theory in 1966 when I was 14 years old, nine months after the great blackout in the northeast US and parts of Canada. Supposedly, lots of extra babies were born because couples had lots of extra sex when the lights went out. This ignores the fact that a large percentage of women are not fertile on any given day, and any given act of unprotected intercourse has a low rate of beginning a pregnancy, plus the fact that many couples would have had sex anyway even with the lights on. The rationale is even weaker these days when contraception is ubiquitous, and people know in advance that a World Series game is being played, and may well buy champagne and condoms. Snopes has debunked this line of thinking here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In May of 1980, Mt. St. Helens erupted violently, with consequent temporary impact that forced a lot of people to stay indoors. Nine months later there was reported to be a spike in the birth rate of areas affected by the eruption. Johnny Carson commented that it was funny that that one big explosion led to all those little ones! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When is Mothers' Day?

Nine months after Fathers' Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.208.70 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 13#Birthdays nine months after their parents. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we get back to the World Series discussion? Baby boom occur in a city where their sports team won a championship. It wasn't just in Arizona in 2002 where baby boom occur because of D-backs winning the World Series nine months earlier. Baby boom occurred in Los Angeles in 2003 because the Anaheim Angels won the World Series, in Florida in 2004 because the Florida Marlins won it, in Boston in 2005 because of Red Sox breaking the 86-year-old curse with their championship, in Chicago in 2006 because of the White Sox winning their first World Series in 88 years, and so on. Chicago witnessed its another summer baby boom in 2017 because of the Cubs winning the World Series for the first time in 108 years. Houston will witness its baby boom in summer of 2018 because of the Astros winning their first championship. The baby boom would be good for Houston because of the devastation from Hurricane Harvey that took away numerous lives. PlanetStar 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Any effect might be drowned out. The Daily Telegraph of 4 November notes:

Rather more scientifically, the highest proportion of babies in Britain are born in September and October, meaning the deep midwinter is the most popular time to conceive.

What national border in Europe is geometric?

What national border in Europe is geometric? Benjamin (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Presumably a border between an independent country and a dependency of another country qualifies as a "national border"; then the border between Gibraltar and Spain (dark gray here) appears to qualify. I don't know how it's actually defined, though. Apparently the Treaty of Utrecht just refers to the "Town of Gibraltar" as it already existed in 1713.

If a disconnected segment of the border between two independent countries qualifies as "a border", then also consider the border between Finland and Sweden on the island of Märket. At least, I think it's disconnected; I'm not sure about maritime boundaries within the Baltic Sea.

--69.159.60.147 (talk)

The border between Poland and Kaliningrad Oblast (Russia) comes close, although it's not perfect. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Large sections of the northern borders between Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia have long, straight sections (in areas with little or no settlement). They are defined in terms of certain fixed points, joined by straight lines. However, given the peculiar wording of the question, I am wondering if the answer being sought may be France: the continental land area of France is often called "The Hexagon" Wymspen (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Except the blue link they included in their description states "Geometric boundaries are formed by straight lines (such as lines of latitude or longitude), or occasionally arcs (Pennsylvania/Delaware) regardless of the physical and cultural features of the area." --Jayron32 11:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the straight sections are long or short - for example part of the frontier might run down the middle of a straight road or along a property boundary - most plots have straight fences. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to the question, but I have marked the definition in Border linked to above as ; in fact I think it might be . I can find no evidence that the phrase exists outside that article. See Talk:Border#Geometric borders. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Baarle-Nassau 1.54.111.248 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 13:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Catacombs of Praetextatus

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

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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. --Jayron32 12:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This book presents an analysis of the use of metaphor in Sound of Silence, pages 254-259. --Jayron32 12:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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. --Jayron32 12:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) ED: My objections have been obviated by people who are not assholes like I am. Carry on. --Jayron32 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[9] Even with a golden visa you will still have to support yourself and pay local taxes. Nanonic (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

See also [10] for a nice breakdown of a number of countries' requirements. Nanonic (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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) [11]. --Xuxl (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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 [12]. 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)

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 [13]. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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) 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) 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) 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)

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) 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) 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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. --Jayron32 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Is the answer to that then Johnny Horton? --Jayron32 20:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Straight Dope has a fairly lengthy column discussing the US loss in the War of 1812 and the role of Canada. [14] CodeTalker (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Breastplate

James Tissot c1900, Moses and Joshua in the Tabernacle

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)

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. --Jayron32 12:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It´s not Aaron: [15]. 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)

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. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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. --Jayron32 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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.[16]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Not submarines specifically, but nose art on warplanes is very similar and has a long tradition. Here contains a few other examples. --Jayron32 14:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The more usual scientific name for Steve is the Last universal common ancestor... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Pooh-Bah claimed he could trace his ancestry back to "a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule."[18] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

See also pedigree collapse. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

(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 [19]. Do other countries operate this system? 82.13.208.70 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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 [20] Wymspen (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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. --Jayron32 12:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

There's lots of reliable sources that talk about it in those terms. See for example [21],[22], [23], [24]. 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 [25] 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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See also this previous question: Primary language of Capetian Angevins in Naples, Hungary and Poland?. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)