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.

June 5

Perfect Agreement of Roman consular lists

Starting from what year, exactly, do ALL Roman consular lists (given by various Roman historians, annalists, fasti, etc.) begin being perfectly synchronized with one another ? I ask this because I know that there are, for instance, some (no so) minor disagreements between Varro and Livy, to name but a couple. (A scholarly critique of traditional Varronian chronology can be found here). — 82.79.182.242 (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would speculate that the answer is never given that histories coming from some 1000 years later also are unreliable. Truly independent historians from 2000+ years ago are unlikely to agree when we don't even have agreement on lists of kings from, say, 10th century Denmark (see List of legendary kings of Denmark), etc. If any such lists were synchronized, from what I know about historiography, it would be more an indication that one list used the other as a source, rather than that they independently arrived at the same chronology. --Jayron 32 01:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually something that is particularly well known, since the Romans used the names of the consuls as part of the date on basically everything, including inscriptions in stone or bronze. However, I'm not sure there is any time past which every source will be in agreement, given List_of_Roman_consuls#Republican_consuls. Though maybe you could check out the book used for that section, The magistrates of the Roman Republic, by T. Robert S. Broughton. Basically, no one source has a complete chronology, some have gaps, some use different versions of the same consul's name, which can cause confusion, some have typos, some typos were later edited (perhaps wrongly), and some authors may have deliberately inserted a falsehood to shift blame for an event. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Pew Research Center research and surveys

How does the Pew Research Center do research and conduct surveys? How do they get facts and statistics if they are not a government agency but a private, non-profit organization? WJetChao (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most Western democracies publish their facts and figures; in the UK, the Office for National Statistics is "charged with the collection and publication of statistics related to the economy, population and society of the UK". Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WJetChao Each Pew Research Center report has a detailed survey methodology section. The report PDFs have the details. For instance, see the Web page on the 2017 report, The Changing Global Religious Landscape. On the right is the PDF labeled Appendix C: Full Methodology, Appendix D: Data Sources by Country, Appendix E: Defining Religious Groups, and Appendix F: Topline, all summarized (Appendix B: Methodology), but not included in the Complete Report (with Appendixes A and B). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City boundary in the US

When I Google Map Sequim, WA, I get this map[1], where presumably the red part outlines the boundary of the city. The red outline almost exactly agrees with this official county zoning map[2], so presumably Google Maps is correct here.

But when I Google Map a location outside those city limits, let's say "Robin Hill Farm County Park", 5 km to the west of Sequim, I get this[3], where its address is given as "141 Dryke Rd, Sequim, WA 98382, USA".

What's going on here? Is "Robin Hill Farm County Park" in Sequim or not? Or are places outside city limits still associated with the city somehow?

Apologies if this is a dumb question. I've always lived in cities so I'm unfamiliar with how these urban-rural boundaries work. Mũeller (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar question recently regarding the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC [4]. In short, postal addresses refer to the location of the post office in charge of distributing the mail to a particular location, and it can often be located in another city. This is most often the case for addresses in unincorporated areas. --Xuxl (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the postal city is not always 1:1 with what you expect. For example: The Pentagon has a mailing address of Washington DC 22202, despite clearly being in Virginia; addresses in New York City use "New York" as the city in Manhattan, the borough name for the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the neighborhood name for Queens - so Queens has a ton more "cities" in it than any other part of NYC. And if you go to the USPS lookup tool and punch in 98382, it includes the "city names to avoid" which are other CDPs in the area that someone might reasonably put as the city name but shouldn't, because a ZIP::City arrangement is supposed to be 1:1; there are still exceptions, though, as seen by the 'other city names recognized' section. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize what Xuxl says, about the postal-city being the place where the post office is located. One might think "well, the Pentagon's different because it's a government building with its own post office", and that's true, but this kind of situation can happen in ordinary state-line situations. For example, see Kaskaskia, the first capital of Illinois. Due to the movement of the Mississippi River, Kaskaskia's more easily accessed from Missouri (see File:Old Mississippi riverbed at St. Mary.jpg and File:Old Mississippi riverbed near St. Mary's.jpg), so its residents have addresses ending with "St. Mary, MO 63673". Border towns may have the same zip code, although with the normal state name; people in Union City have addresses ending in "Union City, IN 45390" or "Union City, OH 45390", for example, although this is easy because both places have the same name. But this doesn't always happen; residents of College Corner, Ohio have their own post office, 45003, while residents of West College Corner, Indiana have their own post office too, 47003. (The line-straddling elementary school has an Ohio address, so you could say that the Indiana part has an out-of-state address.) And a similar situation is true of West Harrison, Indiana, which is much tinier than Harrison, Ohio, but has its own post office. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, some unincorporated areas can have a post office without a city at all; Swannanoa, North Carolina, Springfield, Virginia, and Bear, Delaware all have post offices, but there is no municipal government at all; they are unincorporated places that only have county and state government. --Jayron 32 02:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take it one further — at least those are all "normal" population centers. I doubt it's common in most of the country, but here in Virginia, with comparatively few population centers and a large proportion of people living out in the countryside, one can sometimes find post offices out in the middle of nowhere. Merry Point, for example, is just the post office; it has a few houses, but at no greater density than the surrounding area. Sometimes you'll have a little extra, e.g. the country store and the vet's office near the Keene post office, or a couple of churches at Clifford, but this is not necessarily to be expected. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It happens elsewhere too. Willow Spring, North Carolina is a post office located at a convenient crossroads, but there's nothing there that stands out as a population center. --Jayron 32 00:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can happen both ways: I once lived in a corner of Pasadena that was postally in (unincorporated) Altadena. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, many residents who live in a township or other unincorporated area outside of (but near) a city or village, still have their mail addressed to a post office in their nearest city or village. Most maps will not show this relationship.--Thomprod (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mũeller, since you spoke of Google Maps, try typing in a five-digit number. You'll be given a map that (allegedly) shows the boundaries of the zip code with that number, if there is one. When I supply my parents' code, it correctly shows the code area extending far away from their town in a couple of directions and stopping very nearby in another. When I supply mine, it shows the boundaries following major roads to random locations; I don't know if this is true, but it makes sense, since the zip codes are based on convenient delivery routes and not arbitrary "what's closest to this post office". Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, everyone! Mũeller (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

June 7

An archival misprint, what was in context meant?

In the text of Forude's History of England, on page 33 s:Page:History_of_england_froude.djvu/33 he make reference to some statutes of 2. Hen VII., However, the Table of Statutes (from Ruffhead's collection) for Hen7 and Hen8 do not have a 2Hen7 or 2Hen8., and I've not based on quick glance of subject headings been able to figure out what the intended reference was to insert a SIC note to give the correct one.

So I am brining it over here to ask if any of the reference desk contributors with access to really old statute collections can figure it out. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Query corrected per book text ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference 2 Hen. VI means the second regnal year of King Henry VI. Your source also has a link to 24 Hen. VIII (the 24th regnal year of Henry VIII). I find it surprising that no statutes were passed in the second year of Henry VII. Is the list incomplete or only concerned with statutes still in force? Does the source list any statutes passed in the 24th year of Henry VIII? The phrase "statutes at large" appears to mean "still in force" - for example for 21 Hen. III there is one statute listed - The Statute of the Leap Year - and I know that remained in force until comparatively recently. 2A00:23C0:8302:3A01:D9F2:509:9EC6:581E (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referencing this: s:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes/Table_of_Variances s:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes/Chronological_Table/Hen7 and the relevant volume of The Statutes at Large (collated by Owen Ruffhead (not Runnington's edition.) - Scans here - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large_-_vol_2.djvu&page=11 (for Hen7 and https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large_-_vol_2.djvu&page=15 being the relevant scans for Hen7 and Hen8 respectively... 24Hen8 exists. The Ruffhead colation contains most of the Statutes in force at the time of its collation ( more than currently obviously, as well as number of expired/obslete or arcahic ones.). I can find is something 114Hen7 c. 19 concerning Tilage, but not sure if that's what Froude is in context citing... 4Hen7 c. 16 concerns the Isle of Wight.. hmmm...

4Hen7 c. 19 , I must check before I type stuff.. And yes you are correct about 11Hen7 c. 19

Also s:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes/Chronological Table/Hen6, seem by the dates to be from earlier period, than in context of those in the relevant Froude Chapter.? Puzzling ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11 Hen. VII c. 19 is "An Act against unlawful and deceitful stuffing and making of Feather-beds". 4 Hen. VII c. 16 is "An Act prohibiting the taking of more Farms than One in the Isle of Wight". Henry VII's first regnal year ran from 22 August 1485 to 21 August 1486. His first parliament sat from 7 November to the following March. Its Acts are cited 1 Hen. VII c. 1 ... 1 Hen. VII c. 10. His second parliament was called by writs dated 1 September 1487. It convened at Westminster on 9 November and sat for a month. Its public Acts would be cited 2 Hen. VII c... but it didn't pass any. The third parliament convened 13 January 1489. The citation of its first Act is 3 Hen. VII c. 1. 24 Hen. VIII c. 9 is "An Acte agaynst kyllyng of yong Beasts called Weyndyngs", so it appears that Froude's reference to it is correct. You can read the text of it here: [5]. 2A00:23C0:8302:3A01:9833:D6C:29EC:FF3E (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to Hathi Trust: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017915526;view=1up;seq=567 in context I think Froude means 4HenVII. 16 and 19. Not 2HenVII Thanks.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the anthem of the Communist Party of Germany?

Link to youtube. Couldn't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetizeraz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a title other than Lied der KPD/ML? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the KPD/ML is not the same as the KPD. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 00:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tune is the same as the older Die Arbeiter von Wien, which in turn is based on White Army, Black Baron. --Wrongfilter (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

"people in Maine, who wear sneakers"

I was reading this article[6] and came across this weird stereotype (Apologies to the good people of Maine):

   It also removes a lot of [work] hours that could be done by people who live and work in the city vs. people in Maine, who wear sneakers.

What's the association between Mainer and sneakers? Mũeller (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like slang for something; however the definitive web resource for slang, the Urban Dictionary finds nothing on it. It probably meant something to the audience and the speaker, but only in the local dialect. --Jayron 32 01:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<guess> People living in the city presumably are wearing dress shoes because they have to go to work, while the Maine residents can wear sneakers because they're telecommuting.</guess> Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Nyttend, that's how I read it too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or merely dress less formally. Years ago I was taking a short computer course (a seminar) and the instructor referred to the technicians in the company as "the tennis shoe people." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Icahn, draft

Hi I was wondering if Carl Icahn would have been eligible to be drafted for the Vietnam Nam War, since he was in the Reserve. Thanks.144.35.20.70 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icahn would not have been eligible for the draft lottery regardless, since he was ten years too old at the start of it. But yes, as a former member of the Army Reserve, he would not have received any of the draft classifications that include "available for service". Both current and former members of the Army Reserve under the age of 60 can theoretically be mobilized for war, but this is extremely rare [7]. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fist comment work

what was the fist commentary that comment on a literary work?--93.61.55.121 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest known fictional story is the "Epic of Gilgamesh";^[8] some long-forgotten ancient person might have written a commentary on it. For more clues, see: Ancient literature.

Certainly not the first, but John Tzetzes (c. 1110–1180) was known for his commentary on the Telemachy, etc. Before that, Plato & Aristotle wrote about literary works (notably Plato).^[9] —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further information:

Habib, Rafey (2005). History of Literary Criticism. Blackwell Pub. ISBN 9781280237379. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A claim has been made for Aristophanes' play The Frogs as the earliest known work of literary criticism since it satirizes Euripides and Aeschylus. --Antiquary (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galley slavery as a legal punishment in Ancient Rome: a modern invention?

In the Ben Hur novel, play and films the protagonist is condemned to service on a war galley. According to Slavery in ancient Rome#Types of work people condemned to slavery as a form of legal punishment (servi poenae) were made to work in quarries and mines and Galley slave#Roman and Carthaginian navies specifically states that Romans preferred to rely on free men to row the galleys except in times of dire emergency, and even then there is no suggestion those slaves were actually servi poenae and that it wasn't for them simply a temporary measure while the emergency lasted. So is galley slavery as a legal punishment in Ancient Rome a modern myth? Was it actually invented by Wallace? Does anyone have an authoritative source besides this Guardian article? The article does not attribute the invention of this myth to Wallace. If Wallace did not invent it, where could he have gotten it? Thanks. Basemetal 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the footnote in the Galley slave article: With the possible exception of a single instance in Ptolemaic Egypt (Casson, Lionel (1971). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 325–326.) — See: Appendix § The Use of Slaves —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC) . . . P.s.: I only skimmed that source, but Homer might have popularized the stereotypical "galley slave"; also, there were slaves on Roman galley ships, but tasked with duties other than rowing (but these were probably captive slaves rather than servi poenae). For additional sources, try sources cited therein. (c/e: 17:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note also: It is argued that the motif was constructed by projecting onto classical times knowledge of the historical galley slavery of the early modern Mediterranean. Source:

James, Simon (January 2001). "The Roman galley slave: Ben-Hur and the birth of a factoid". Public Archaeology. 2 (1): 35–49. doi:10.1179/pua.2001.2.1.35. ISSN 1465-5187.

—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782. The last article deals exactly with my question. I don't have access to the full text but the abstract does already attribute the invention of the myth to Wallace himself. That answers my question. But it'd be interesting to see the whole argument as presented by that 14 page article. Basemetal 10:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The technical reason is that classical ancient galleys, from penteconter to trireme were operated on the principle of one rower per oar. Even for later models like the quinquereme, most sources assume some oars were operated by a single rower, others by two. In all these cases, rowing is a very skilled profession, and a single non-cooperative rower can throw off the whole crew. Not something you want to happen in a naval battle. Later galleys moved to a model with fewer but larger oars operated by 3-7 rowers. In that case, rowing was less complicated, and individual rower had less of an influence on overall performance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is again. The last time I checked, there was only one original source (Casson) stating that the slave rower is a mythe (while everybody else since is just citing this one) and the referenced original text I could not find. But from what could be inferred this source as well has no one single proof of the stated theory beside the personal opinion of the author: that for this or that reason, to employ slaves or prisoners as rowers would not have been rationally sound, economically defensible or, as you say, technically feasible. Unfortunately this is nothing but speculation, original research out of thin air, with no one single original Roman or Greek source from the 1th century stating that the rower were not slaves resp. prisoners but for example regular soldiers, mercenaries or hired professionals. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Do you have an example that does state that slaves were used? Morrison's The Athenian Triere cites ample original sources and states "The oarsmen fall into two categories, Athenian citizens and foreigners" (page 114 and on). In particular check page 118, where the exceptional use of slaves is discussed, sourced to a collection of ancient Greek inscriptions and Xenophon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but the Athenian triere falls in the Greek 5th and 4th century. With Ben Hur we are talking about the Roman firsth century (in an economy much more similar to Venice's or France's in the Renaissance). Anyway I don't have the impression that page long arguments like "rowing is a very skilled profession, and a single non-cooperative rower can throw off the whole crew" are based on some reliable source but sound like the personal opinion of the author. But maybe these statements are well sourced and only the phrasing is not encyclopedic. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

June 9

Is the word "peace officer" a technical term for the word "police officer"?

I see this term "peace officer" sometimes but it this a jargon for the term "police officer"? WJetChao (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the article about it. In the US it means anyone charged with upholding the law not necessarily a police officer, for example a game warden. In the UK an 'officer of the peace' does mean a police officer. Dmcq (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch about Cato the Elder

According to Slavery in ancient Rome Cato the Elder used to sell slaves that had become unable to work. The source is Plutarch's Life of Cato the Elder but it's not given as an exact quote. I'm baffled as to why anyone would buy a useless slave. Did the WP editor go beyond what Plutarch actually says? If you have access to Plutarch's text could you check? I have read that Cato used to throw out of the house old or sick slaves, but not that he actually managed to sell them. That's the bit that puzzles me. Thanks. Basemetal 10:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this translation Plutarch says:

"He tells us...that he never paid more than fifteen hundred drachmas for a slave, since he did not want them to be delicately beautiful, but sturdy workers, such as grooms and herdsmen, and these he thought it his duty to sell when they got oldish, instead of feeding them when they were useless...

These things were ascribed by some to the man's parsimony; but others condoned them in the belief that he lived in this contracted way only to correct and moderate the extravagance of others. However, for my part, I regard his treatment of his slaves like beasts of burden, using them to the uttermost, and then, when they were old, driving them off and selling them, as the mark of a very mean nature, which recognizes no tie between man and man but that of necessity."

I skipped a bit because it's not about slaves, but Cato wanted everyone to think he was very austere and morally upright, and Plutarch saw through it and thought he was kind of a jerk. There were lots of other things a slave could do once they were slightly too old for Cato. Cato worked them to exhaustion (or death) but they could still be perfectly economically viable for another owner. It's almost like buying a used car today. In Rome, teachers were very often slaves. Cato employed a slave schoolteacher himself, but Plutarch says he "thought it not right...that his son should be scolded by a slave, or have his ears tweaked when he was slow to learn, still less that he should be indebted to his slave for such a priceless thing as education."

Basically the most important thing to keep in mind is that Cato the Elder is an asshole. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam for the exact Plutarch quote which does indeed clarify things. And of course he was

even by the standards of Plutarch, let alone ours. He is also the Carthago delenda est guy which does not exactly make his case any better. But he also had a kind of wry sense of humor at least judging from the fact that, while he recommended strict formal adherence to the traditional religious practices (as a matter of conformity to tradition and the laws of the state, not of one of ethics or philosophy) he was not fooled by them: he used to say, it is said, that no two diviners could walk past each other without laughing (because, it was implied though not stated, they both knew and knew the other knew what their "divining" was really worth). I hope I got the paraphrase more or less right, though this fact is not mentioned in the WP article. Basemetal 12:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWII & Maritime boundaries

During WWII there were a lot of changes in the land borders but I can't find anything about maritime boundaries changes (both internationally accepted and claimed). I'm not talking about post-war decisions but during the war. Do you have any information? Thanks. --79.26.127.82 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As regards western Europe, the Germans retained the borders of the occupied countries for their administrations; France was split between the Occupied Zone and the Free Zone, the former controlling the entire Channel and Atlantic coast of France, so no maritime changes there. The boundary changes for the Greater German Reich were a peacetime project and were never implemented. In the east, Austria, Czechoslovakia were incorporated into the Reich but had no coastline. The Second Polish Republic's coastline was only 140 km at the top of the Polish Corridor, which was sandwiched between Germany proper and the German territory of West Prussia. The zone occupied by the Soviets had no coastline. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1940 Italy annexed a small area of south-east France, including the town of Menton, and in 1941 the Axis powers partitioned Yugoslavia. Presumably territorial waters changed hands both times, though I could find no details. --Antiquary (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot locate any pre-war maps which show maritime boundaries, and wonder if there was as much significance to them at that time. With a 3 mile territorial limit, and a mid-line when shores were too close for that to apply. The only maritime treaty listed from that period was between Turkey and Italy, and seems to have been more concerned about which islets were in which country. During a time of war, I doubt anyone bothered much: how far your coastal guns could fire was more important than where the official boundary lay. Wymspen (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

US Trade tariffs

Why are the countries which Donald Trump's administration has just posted tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium so angry. Aren't the tariffs that they impose on the United States exports considerably higher. It seems hypocritical of the European Union, Canada, Japan, et al. to criticise the Trump administration for threatening their export markets when the tariffs that they impose threaten the United States export market, and lead to huge trade deficits. Surely, when they criticise Trump's 'America First' policy as 'protectionism', isn't that exactly what they do when they have tariffs of up to 300%? How do countries that impose such large tariffs on the United States justify this. On a Eurosceptic note, doesn't this policy of imposing very high tariffs on non-EU products reinforce the criticism that the EU is essentially a protection racket?

Just as an aside, I don't have strong feelings either in support or in opposition to Donald Trump, I just accept that in terms of levelling the playing field on international trade, he may, unless there are factors I'm unaware of, have a point. --Andrew 00:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 300% would be in reference to the controlled Canadian milk supply system. The system is closed to stabilize prices for dairy farmers so that they are not in a poor situation like they are in Wisconsin where the farmers overproduce and then sell their milk below production cost and go out of business. Many dairy farmers in the US wished they had such a system. ^[1]^[2].

References

Plus of course the US gives large subsidies to milk producers which keep them overproducing. Sending it to Canada could be counted as dumping. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, most of the world has been cutting tariffs slowly but surely for the last 50 years, Trump is the first to increase tariffs at the expense of both the US and their trade partners, and other nations don't want to raise tariffs in response (trade war), as it will hurt them as well as the US. Of 19 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act for a relevant historical episode. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not exactly reassuring. At least you could see the reason then when the Great Depression was starting, but the economy was already growing when Trump came into office, the main problem was that inequality was growing. And as far as I can see inequality is growing even more under Trump. His zero sum game attitude is an inequality driver. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Irish Trade War is a good illustration that countries will not back down under extreme economic pressure. Did sanctions and poverty in Cuba topple that government or get them to change their policies? It may not be in the economic interest of countries to have a trade war but they will most certainly do it if pushed. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question: There is a difference in average tariffs between the US and the EU, but it is not extreme (IIRC, its 3.5% vs. 4.5%). You ned to look at the overall system, not just individual tariffs. Import duties for car are higher in the EU than in the US, but duties on pick-ups and light trucks are a lot higher in the US than in the EU. These tariffs have been negotiated in multilateral treaties under the rules of the WTO. It is, of course, possible, to negotiate new tariffs and even new rules, But that should be a bi- or multilateral process, and not a unilateral action. Quick changes in markets are bad for the economy - it needs time to organise production chains, and disruptions come at a significant cost. As for the trade deficit: It shrinks significantly, if not only goods but also services are considered (I assume that's Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook and the like). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OP, The short answer is, it doesn’t work that way. Companies trade; countries rarely do, if ever. When a producer in one country sells to a wholesaler in another country, the producer may well own the wholesaler (or vice versa) and the transaction may well be merely an inter-company transfer. Pricing may be mainly dependent on where it is favorable from a tax perspective to record the profits.

When populist protectionist career politicians raise the price their own companies and consumers must pay, the companies involved in the trade may earn less profit as the market demands less product at the higher prices.

Economists don’t look at bilateral trade balances except when populist protectionist career politicians force the matter for their own purely partisan purposes. The reason is that bilateral trade balances provide no meaningful information, as can easily be understood by a first year economics student. What matters in the entire balance of goods, services, royalties, dividends, transfer payments, capital investment, portfolio investment, change in international reserves (unless one enjoys seigniorage privileges), etc. In other words, the Balance of Payments.

But, that’s too complicated for populist protectionist career politicians to convey to ignorant voters in a sound bite, so they just jack up prices and thereby lower standards of living. The foregoing may not be entirely objective, but it is accurate. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Permission for Photograph (1932)

Arthur Garfield Hays’s book Let Freedom Ring (New York, NY: Boni and Liveright, 1932) includes a photograph of H.L. Mencken and Arthur Garfield Hays facing page 158. The book does not provide any credit information for the photograph in question.

Our assumption is that attorney A.G. Hays held the copyright during his lifetime. He died in 1954. His daughter, Jane Butler, renewed the copyright to the book in 1970. She died on May 3, 2016.

The question is whether the copyright to the photograph has been lost with her death, and whether it is now freely available for use by bona fide users?

Alternatively, the copyright renewal of 1970 may well mean that the copyright is still in force, and it is mandatory to trace Jane Butler’s children?

We decided to make use of the Reference Desk service of the Wikipedia because we assume that, given the large numbers of photographs in the Wiki, you have some real experts in copyright at your service.

We would like to make use of the photograph in a scholarly essay to be published in Menckeniana, a journal published by the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, Md. for the members of the Mencken Society. Menckenire (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real experts are at Wikipedia:Copyright assistance. However, determining whether a particular image is still under copyright is a form of legal advice, which we are forbidden to provide - there is a note to that effect at the top of the page: "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." Matt Deres (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was published in 1932. U S Copyright Office circular 15 [10] states:

NOTE: If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year of the copyright and could not be restored.

You don't provide details of the 1970 copyright renewal so we can't help you further here, other than to point out that if there was no renewal in 1960 (ask the Copyright Office about that) the picture is now in the public domain. 2A00:23C1:3180:6501:4924:26B9:284A:6CE7 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

insularity index

Consider, for a given territory, the probability that two randomly chosen residents cannot visit each other without getting on a boat. Has someone made a list of this (or something similar)?

I was amused today to notice that Greece, which would be high on this list, had a royal dynasty from Denmark, also high. —Tamfang (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific island nations would dominate the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere in the world that allows domestic partners to have as many partners as possible?

Most sources suggest that a "domestic partnership" involves two people. When people write about domestic partnerships, they compare this concept to marriage, hinting that it's supposed to be like marriage, but it is not legal marriage. So... if it's not legal marriage, then does that mean a person can have unlimited number of domestic partners while in a marriage, a person is limited to one partner? If there are 5 working adults in the same house, related or unrelated, then are they all domestic partners to each other? If the said five people are siblings, and the oldest of the five marries and brings in a new family member, who also brings in an income to the household, then is the oldest sibling a domestic partner to all working adults in the household or just a spouse to one person? SSS (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on this - Domestic partnership. Very US-centric, but worth a read. The word partner itself has multiple meanings. There is the one that implies sexual activity, usually between two people. Then there is the one used in business, (where sex is not involved or is kept secret) where numbers greater than two are normal. When it comes to the domestic kind, most countries have no laws preventing any number of people getting together and having sex. It's just when it comes to marriage that the law tells you how many partners you can have. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a domestic partnership, are the members obligated to engage in sexual intercourse? IIRC, consummation of marriage occurs after the wedding. The marriage must be consummated. If it ain't consummated, then it ain't a marriage, and the marriage can be annulled. If a person just gets a roommate, and the roommate is just there to help pay the bills and do household chores, then is that a domestic partnership? For the relationship to be a domestic partnership, do the members have to engage in intercourse with each other? SSS (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Sex isn't essential. I guess "partner" is pretty ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-one can be obligated to have sex with anyone, even in marriage. Iapetus (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Group marriage despite having the word marriage in it? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In modern legal usage, "domestic partnership" seems to be mainly modeled on monogamous marriage. In some traditional societies, a man was allowed to have a wife (or multiple wives), and also concubines, where concubinage was considered less than marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

Peter Bessell - Lynwyd School?

According to the Times obituary of Peter Bessell he was educated at Lynwyd School in Bath, and this is what our article goes with. The only Google hits for "Lynwyd School" appear to be either Wikipedia mirrors, or other sites closely paraphrasing our article. The only other mention of "Lynwyd" in the Times digital archive is a mention of it as a village in Wales in a marriage notice. My family are from Bath, and none recall a Lynwyd School ever being there. So, my question is, "where did Peter Bessell go to school?" DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a basic check of the Newspaper archive for the Bath Chronicle and found 4 possible results for further investigation here (all referencing 'Lyn-Wyd' in Bath). Nanonic (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems "Lyn-Wyd" was used to mean Lyncombe and Widcombe (areas of Bath). Not tracked down the school yet, nor the "Bath Brotherhood" mentioned in one of the articles you found. Presumably some sort of Congregationalist chapel, if so it might jog my Dad's memory. DuncanHill (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not found his school yet, but he was married in the Argyle Congregational Church in Bath, of which my grandfather was secretary! DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the records from the newspaper archive say that the hall was on Somerset Street or Southgate street, which isn't in Widcombe or Lyncombe but is not too far away. I also found a record in the Somerset Archives which suggests that Lynwid hall was called at one point the "People's Mission Hall". On Corn Street, which is very nearby, there is the "mission theatre", which was "a Protestant place of worship" in the 19th century. I'm pretty sure that the roads have changed, as Somserset Street and Corn Street no longer share a corner, so it might once have been on one of the other roads. It's not very helpful I suppose but I find it quite interesting. --KingUther (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of Southgate has been demolished and rebuilt twice in my father's lifetime. DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

map legend

In this map[11]:

1. Light green is all land areas other than Hokkaido Prefecture.

2. Purple is Sapporo, the capital of Hokkaido.

3. Brass color is the town being highlighted, Tōyako, Hokkaido in this case.

What about the 4. red and 5. brown areas? What do they represent?

All the maps for Japanese cities follow this legend on the Japanese and English Wikipedias (along others), but I can't seem to find a legend for this color scheme. Mũeller (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red appears to be cities of Japan while brown is towns of Japan and villages of Japan. See List of cities in Japan. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the most negative interest rate debt ever? Has the price of debt ever been 1.01 per unit promised? (excluding repaying in different currency) 1.02? More?

(also not counting losing stock shorting lends since the stock lender was only promised shares, not that the shares would be worth anything)

How negative would bank and bond interest rates need to be before it becomes worth it for companies with liquid asset wealth on the scale of billions or hundreds of billions of $/€/£ to store most of it as banknotes in private vaults instead of banks? Wouldn't that hurt the (general) economy even more? (of course specific industries like vault builders and bank security guards might be helped)

Has a nonfinancial company ever stored that much (legally-earned, not being hidden) cash after say the Industrial Revolution reached them? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Number of times England could have had a king named Arthur?

There are two Arthurs who could have become king of England: Arthur I, Duke of Brittany and Arthur, Prince of Wales. Are there more such Arthurs? Are there other first names no king of England was ever called one could have been? Basemetal 06:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Frederick, Prince of Wales who died before he could become king, and there has never been a King Frederick of either The United Kingdom or England. There was also an Albert, Prince of Wales, but he dropped his first name and became Edward VII. There has never been a King Albert of either The United Kingdom or England. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William the Conqueror's eldest son, Robert Curthose, might have expected to succeed his father, but in the event he was fobbed off with the Duchy of Normandy, primogeniture not having yet having fully taken hold in English law or custom, so we never had a King Robert. --Antiquary (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was Stephen, King of England, who ended a civil war by ceding the succession to the throne to the man who became Henry II, thus disinheriting his own eldest surviving son Eustace. --Antiquary (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to have one more shy at this, Harold II's eldest son failed to become King Godwin not because of his slightly questionable legitimacy but because of, well, events, dear boy, events. --Antiquary (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how far you stretch "could have become king". If Queen Victoria had had no children, for example, she would have been succeeded by her first cousin once removed Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. There has never been a King Ernest, a King Augustus or a King Ernest Augustus (it is not clear what regnal name he would have taken). As it happened, Ernest Augustus bore arms against the UK during the First World War and was deprived of his British titles in 1919. Proteus (Talk) 09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, and there's never been a King Michael while there was a guy in Australia called Michael who it is said was the legitimate heir to the English throne. But, seriously, no. I meant people who had a one time been the immediate heir to the English throne. And note both previous respondents also understood it that way. Basemetal 09:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: Alphonso would have been rather "in-your-face" aux Brexiteers :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered Sophia of Hanover, legal heir of Queen Anne, who would have succeeded to the throne if she'd just lived a few weeks longer. Also George IV's only child, Princess Charlotte, who predeceased her father. And there have been quite a few kings of England (Great Britain, etc.) whose first child was a daughter, that daughter being soon bumped down the line of succession by their younger brothers. Thankfully that's no longer possible. --Antiquary (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, no really, finally, I can add the names Thomas, Roger, Edmund, Humphrey, Catherine, Frances, Margaret and Ernest, now that I've discovered our list of heirs apparent and presumptive to the English throne and list of heirs apparent and presumptive to the British throne. --Antiquary (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I didn't know about those lists either. Thanks. Btw, not Edmund: Edmund I and Edmund Ironside. Basemetal 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! --Antiquary (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the North Korea summit in Singapore with Donald Trump

This got me wondering. How do they get all of our cars (Secret Service limousines, etc.) over to other foreign countries when the President travels abroad? I assume they fly them? How does that work? Are there special airplanes that fly cars? And what do they fit, like one car per airplane? There seemed to be a huge procession of USA cars there. Let's just say 30. That would take 30 separate airplanes to transport them over there? Thanks. Also, a (sort of) related question. What happens when the USA President travels to a country where they drive on the left side of the road? Do we (USA) have special cars for that? Or does the host country just make an "exception" and let us drive cars that are designed for American driving (on the right side of the road, with steering wheel and driver side on the left)? Similarly, what do we do in the USA when we host other dignitaries from a foreign country where they drive on the left? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#United States Air Force: "A C-17 accompanies the President of the United States on his visits to both domestic and foreign arrangements, consultations, and meetings. The C-17 is used to transport the Presidential Limousine and security detachments." In answer to your second question, no "exception" is required. It is perfectly legal to drive a right-hand drive car in countries where they drive on the right, and a left-hand drive car in countries where they drive on the left. Happens all the time. --Viennese Waltz 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a mundane example in America, those little US Postal Service trucks have the steering wheel on the right, so that the postman driver doesn't have to scoot over to drop mail into roadside mailboxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be remembered that the presidential car does not drive in regular traffic. It drives on closed roads with a police escort as part of a motorcade. Keeping to the right lane and watching your mirrors is not a major consideration; making sure you have a car able to withstand an armed attack is. --Xuxl (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.agupdate.com/agriview/news/dairy/dairy-farmers-mull-supply-management/article_e5820cfe-abbd-5772-98b6-047f3e8c42b3.html

[2] ttps://www.wisfarmer.com/story/news/state/2018/03/18/would-controlled-milk-production-work-u-s/437052002/

[1]

[2]