Humanities desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 24[edit]

superoldest living black peoples[edit]

Generally, on average old black women lives longer or old black womens live longer? One black women have live until 108. Bettie Wilson, one of the oldest black women live till 115. One old black man who was a golf player live until 111, the first national leader on Malawi live until 100.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few not randomly selected data points do not make a good basis for such determinations. You need a large sample to get reliable numbers. The U.S. CDC has a good graph on page four of this report: [1] They use a very large data set and find that black women on average live several years longer than black men (and about the same average lifespan as white men, but trailing white women by several years). Rmhermen (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican and Iranian skin colors[edit]

What is the general color of Mexicans. Is Mexians usually tan, white, or brown in skin color. What about Indian and Arabian skin colors. Aren;t they orange or yellow in skin color. Is Asians white?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans and Iranians and Indians and Arabians and Asians all have a wide range of skin colors. Usually, skin colors of people range are various shades of tans and browns, though some people have pinkish tones mixed in as well. --Jayron32 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these groups vary quite a bit. There are Asians with very light, white-like skin tone, and there are those with very dark skin tone. Different regions of India have very, very different skin and facial apperances. Arab is a language and cultural group and corresponds with a hugely varied geographical range. Mexicans have as varied skin tones as you can find anywhere else. None of these skin colorations line up with crude color categories like "orange" or "yellow". --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Human skin color and Race (classification of human beings) for related topics. Tempshill (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, most Iranians are not arab. Googlemeister (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Ellien[edit]

@Nil: Actually there is a difference between language and dialect. Many languages have mutually intelligible dialects, as well as language isolates.174.3.103.39 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to continue that discussion, post to that discussion. If you want to talk to Nil, post to his talk page. It'll help if you spell his name approximately correctly. Algebraist 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol in the archive? He'd be having a discussion with himself because no one watches any of those pages

If you feel there's an important point to be made, there's nothing wrong with responding, part of the point of archives is for future reference. You're probably right that no one would notice, if you've contradicted someone's point and what to give him/her the chance to respond it's probably best to mention it on the talk page Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is over. This was for the desk, not for his talk page.174.3.103.39 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question then? -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. There is no clearcut line between a language and a dialect because they are part of the same continuum. You can't clearly say A is a dialect while B is a language since there's no way you can draw a clear line between a two, even if you can say English and Malay are languages and clearly not dialects of each other. I can't think of a better example at this time so this will have to do; you can say there's clearly a difference between light and dark but you can't somehow magically divide all shades into either light or dark. The same could be said of green and blue probably. We humans like to neatly categorise things, but anything which is continous or a continuum (which is many things) rather then quantum or discrete can't actually fit into neat categories except in an artifical way. If you have a way of accurately and consistently measuring you can perhapsput everything into a category even if it's a bit artificial but otherwise there's always likely to be things which are closer to one extreme then the other yet go into the other category. Also, while I'm not a linguist, I think you can resonable divide mutually intelligable dialects into further dialects. For example, American English is a dialect of English but there are many dialects of British English. You might argue you should only consider these dialects of English rather then dialects of American English but that ignores the fact these dialects arose largely together and share many simularities with each other that they don't share with any other dialect. P.S. I came across this which may be of some relevance Dialect continuum Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visigothic languages[edit]

Did the Visigoths who lived in the Visigothic Kingdom speak a Germanic language? If so, how is it that those who succeeded them following the Reconquista spoke a Romance language? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original conquerors certainly spoke an East Germanic language, but the Visigoths in Spain seem to have formed a small and somewhat inward-looking ruling elite, while the majority of the population went on speaking their previous languages. There's some discussion of the almost completely negligeable linguistic effects of Visigothic rule in Spain in the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler.. AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The elite Visigothic language was Gothic. Changes must have occured during the two centuries of Visigothic rule in Hispania.--Wetman (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depression?[edit]

Are we currently in a depression? If not, how much worse do things have to get before we start calling this recession a depression? Also, what would make it another "great" depression? Cousert (talk)

I'm not sure whom you mean by "we", but in the US, we're not in a depression because the government refuses to say we are. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agreed-upon definition of a depression, other than that it is an economic downturn more severe than a recession. One rule of thumb is that a depression reflects a reduction of at least 10% in gross domestic product. In most countries, the current downturn, although the most severe since the Great Depression, falls well short of that standard. In the United States, the Great Depression resulted in a 33% reduction in GDP, so that's the kind of downturn that would be needed for this to be called the Second Great Depression. John M Baker (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition I heard (which is apparently incorrect; hey, I heard it in a tabloid newspaper) is that the GDP falls for four quarters in succession. Recession is two quarters. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formal definition of a recession is a two consecutive quarter decline in real GDP. There is no formal definition of a depression. Wikiant (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be correct. This Google search might give you a few ideas to play with, though. One of the hits returns a "definition" from the respected journal The Economist giving the rather vague "a bad, depressingly prolonged recession in economic activity." --bodnotbod (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'we'. Are you depressed? Then you're in a depression.

Seriously though, when all joy and spontaneity has disappeared from a person's life, they will seek wealth as a sign that all is well in the world. In an economic downturn like what happened last September, all these joyless automatons have their worldview challenged. They call it depression. The reality is that their souls are in anguish. Their economic reality is largely unchanged. So long as people get enough to eat (they do) and have a warm bed to sleep in (they usually do), everything else is trivial and inconsequential. Vranak (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Republicans perceive correctly that their only hopes of gaining in the next round of elections are through a public sense of worsening economic slump and other fear-driven voting patterns: it is with this sense that their leaders express "concerns" that Obama's administration will "fail".--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set definition, either of recession or (economic) depression. Back in the 1970s, a newspaper journalist came up with the "two consecutive quarters of economic decline” rule of thumb (but, unhelpfully failed to say whether that would be quarter-to-quarter annualized decline, or year-on-year; or whether it would be nominal or real terms, but that’s journalists for you). Prior to the 1950s, the term “economic recession” didn’t exist. It was coined during the Truman Administration because officials didn’t want to alarm people by using the more common term “depression.”

The chief differences between recessions and depressions are (a) duration; (b) depth; and (c) deflation. Recessions are short, sharp and do not necessarily involve falling prices. Depressions, on the other hand, are longer, deeper and must be characterized by a general fall in prices and output.DOR (HK) (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what troops were at the battle of the wilderness[edit]

does anyone know??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Battle of the Wilderness. Algebraist 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wilderness Confederate order of battle and Wilderness Union order of battle --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's if the question is about the Battle of the Wilderness in the American Civil War. For the French and Indian War battle sometimes known as the Battle of the Wilderness, see Battle of the Monongahela. —Kevin Myers 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist opposition within the Soviet bloc[edit]

Are there any examples of parties or individuals within the Soviet bloc who sided with the Maoists in the Sino-soviet split? --Gary123 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enver Hoxha, I believe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were several (although not all could necessarily be identified as Maoist). There were pro-Maoist/anti-Revisionist groups amongst Soviet students, but it seems they didn't make any formal organization. There's an article on Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks), but its possible that that group was an Albanian propaganda hoax. It was rumoured that Molotov worked behind the scenes for the anti-revisionist opposition. In Poland, there was Kazimierz Mijal and Communist Party of Poland (Mijal). In East Germany there was the Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists, German wikipedia writes "Als einzige K-Gruppe verfügte die KPD/ML seit Mitte der 1970er Jahre auch über einen Ableger in der DDR, dieser wurde größtenteils Anfang der 1980er Jahre vom MfS zerschlagen. Das Organ der DDR-Sektion hieß Roter Blitz. Vorläufer Anfang der 80er Jahre war der "Rote Morgen - Ausgabe der Sektion DDR". Die Magdeburger Ortsgruppe reorganisierte sich nach der Wende 1989." At one point the KPD/ML was the sole organized opposition parties in the GDR. --Soman (talk)

See [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. on KPD/ML in GDR. --Soman (talk)

I bit separate from the query perhaps, but the People's Republic of Kampuchea was part of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s, and the Party of Democratic Kampuchea (i.e. Khmer Rouge) was a pro-China opposition group. Both the Korean and Vietnamese communist parties had ambivalent positions at the time of the Sino-Soviet split, but both ended up remaining in the Soviet bloc. --Soman (talk)

Another incident, preceding the Sino-Soviet split, but related to the political changes after the 20th CPSU congress, were the conflicts amongst Greek communists exiled in Tashkent. see http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/2007/08/50-years-since-massive-rebellion-of.html and http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv14n2/greek.htm . --Soman (talk)

AFAIK Romania was tilted more towards China as towards the USSR. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania is a bit of a complicated case. Romania did pronounce a certain degree of independence against USSR, and did borrow some inspiration from Asian socialist countries. For example, Romania did not send troops to crush the Prague spring. But its also important to state that Romania never broke with the Soviet bloc. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US states :geographical oddities..?[edit]

Once, early in my use of WK, I think I stumbled on a page that listed certain "trivia" statistics about the US States' relationship to each other, eg " State that borders most other states" etc. But after many attempts to find again, I remain defeated ! I have seen "US border anomalies" but this was something else..Can anyone pont me in the right direction ? Feroshki (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list of trivia does not seem that encyclopedic, so it might have been gone AFD. Googlemeister (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikianswers says that Tennessee and Missouri both border eight states. Tennessee: Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. Missouri: Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. See also Four Corners.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Twelve Mile Circle and The Wedge (border) in the north of Delaware. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And those are listed in Category:Border irregularities of the United States. Some other such things at the parent cat, Category:Boundaries of U.S. states. Pfly (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope[edit]

Is there any mechanism of removing the pope from office besides his death? Can he be voted out by the cardinals? Can he voluntarily resign? Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article papal resignation. Algebraist 14:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. So it appears he can resign, but no one else can force him out of the papacy without actually killing him. Googlemeister (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times in history have a group of Cardinals or some King or Emperor and some cardinals just gone ahead and elected a replacement Pope, without killing the incumbent or getting a resignation? Regardless of whether later historians considered the rump Pope the "real" one, didn't he have temporal power and weren't rites he performed recognized as legitimate, such as marriages, ordinations as priest or as bishop? In the 11th century there were three "Popes" at the same time and all three were deposed by an Emperor,Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor for instance. Did he technically get resignations, by making them an offer they couldn't refuse (either your signature or your brains will be on that resignation document in one minute) or did he just issue an "Edict of Papal Deposition?" Some irregularity in the selection of a Pope (purchasing the office, in the 11th century) might have been used to argue that he was "never legitimately Pope." But then wouldn't someone have to follw up and re-make the bishops he made, so that the priests they made would be recognized? Edison (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complete list at Antipope. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were their edits and such considered legitimate? Often the Popes would excommunicate each other and such. Very confusing how to deal with that if you were a (honest) bishop I am sure. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time there was any significant popular support for a rival pope was a long time ago. I think it's safe to say it's just not going to happen these days, and the Pulvermachers of the world can go hell for leather but they are simply never going to be recognised. And without that recognition, nothing they do or say will ever be considered legitimate. (Btw, popes probably don't make "edits"; they're too busy reading our articles to get around to improving them. :)

I remember during the last couple of years of John Paul II's reign, when he was infirm (to put it mildly), people saying "He can't function any more; they'll obviously get rid of him". But who were "they"? I can imagine cardinals bringing pressure to bear on a pope to abdicate, but they can't force him to do so. Short of murder (~~papicide~~ I now discover the word is "papacide"), it's not possible to get rid of a pope. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories regarding the death of John Paul II's immediate predecessor, who died unexpectedly after only a month or so in office. We also have a List of murdered Popes. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not answer the question, the Cadaver Synod article may be of interest to the OP. Dismas|^(talk) 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a little something extra in the nighty-night cocoa, as in one movie? Edison (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural style of house[edit]

What is the architectural style of the Hugh T. Rinehart House (built in 1861 in Auglaize County, Ohio), pictured here? I'm really not good at identifying styles, and (unlike many houses on the NRHP) this one doesn't have a style indicated in the NRHP database. Other images are available at Commons:Category:Hugh T. Rinehart House. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The seeming problem is the result of our American habit of inflating all buildings to the status of "architecture". "Bungalow" was not yet a term used in Ohio. Why is this not simply a vernacular cottage? BtW, the NRHP database, followed blindly at Wikipedia as it must be, credits as "Greek Revival" all houses built c. 1820-1840, it seems, whether or not they have perceptibly "Grecian" details. This cottage shows that not everything built in 1861 was "Victorian architecture".--Wetman (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I would call that style Haitian Shanty, but to each his own. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek revival seems fair. The column capitals appear to be of the Doric order. The house has likely been altered over the years, and an early drawing or photo would be useful in determining what it started as.

Another photo is available at this Ohio Historical Society webpage. Don't know the date for it, however. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclecticism or historicism? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the materials being all wrong, it has a bit of a (probably unintentional) Japanese look to it. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read this last comment and laughed: not because it was silly, but because it's something I never would have thought of :-) Rather ironic, one of the reasons that this house is recognised as historic is its architecture, but no style is defined. "Vernacular architecture" seems quite appropriate; I'm going to categorise the images that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I got the same impression when I first saw the photo :) I guess it's the way the roof curves that seems vaguely Japanese. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental deaths in the US military[edit]

I've been reading a US book which says that over a thousand US military personnel get killed every year in military accidents (not during combat) and that at least 200 commit suicide every year. Is that true? 78.147.128.100 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source, but that sound very credible. It's a big military, they do a lot of stuff, and health-and-safety guys with clipboards are much less prevalent in military settings than ordinary civilian life. A remarkable number of deaths in warzones like Afghanistan are due to car accidents and helicopter crashes. Planes crash, humvees don't have crumple-zones (heck, do they even have seatbelts?), and much time is spent firing live ammo. People die of heatstroke or exposure, or are run over by landrovers or fall off cliffs. Worse, if you shoot yourself in the brain with M-16 you thought was empty but wasn't, you don't get a purple heart, even if you were trying to unjam it when under fire in Helmand. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This where "not during combat" means "not as a result of enemy action", not "not in a combat zone". -- Finlay McWalter Talk 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official US Army site says that "accidental, non-combat deaths" peaked in 2005 at 299. MSNBC reported (in 2006) that suicides rose in 2005 to 83. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers (cited by Clarityfiend) are just for the active duty US Army, and not the US military overall.

Unless my math is off, about 1,000 accidental deaths per year in a military of about 3 million people is about the same rate as civilian accidental deaths in the US (about 100,000 deaths per 300 million people per year). And I think the military suicide rate appears to be lower than the civilian rate. —Kevin Myers 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a news report recently about the rise in the murder rate of spouses by active duty military personal returning from the Middle East. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]