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

December 15

Position of Isis In/Around Aleppo after Syrian Government has taken Control.

I am looking for clarification on the position of ISIS after the rebels have lost control of Aleppo, my confusion comes after looking at the Syrian Civil War detailed map on the map you see that ISIS has some positions on the countryside outside of Aleppo, I have seen many people suggesting Rebels are ISIS (Which I know is not particularly accurate) because ISIS has more control near ar-Raqqah, This is a complex situation, and from an independent education perspective, I want to understand how ISIS plays a role in the battle of Aleppo, or if it even had a role, more confusion arose after I read this from PBS NewsHour

HARI SREENIVASAN: Joshua Landis, what about ISIS and al-Qaida that almost seem forgotten in this giant proxy war? What happens? Is ISIS taking advantage of this opportunity, as Margaret Warner reported?

JOSHUA LANDIS: Yes, ISIS did. We saw that, as Syrian troops went to Aleppo, ISIS took Palmyra. But ISIS’ days are numbered.

I am just trying to get to the truth of this topic, because it is hard to dissect every aspect of this topic. NoLegMan (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, ISIS is not involved in the battle for Aleppo, but the diversion of Syrian troops from Palmyra to Aleppo did allow them to retake that site. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was gathering, from the sources I posted, I was only curious because I have seen wild accusations all over the web especially, just hard to keep everything straight.NoLegMan (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

I suppose, in a sense, the Free Syrian Army rebels are a bigger priority for the Assad regime than ISIS is. The world will destroy ISIS anyways, but much of the world, barring Russia obviously, would be very happy to see the Free Syrian Army rebels overrun Damascus and execute Assad. Eliyohub (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Especially given how well the assassination approach has worked in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Worked well against Nicolae Ceaușescu. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceaușescu wasn't assassinated. He was arrested along with his wife trying to leave the country illegally, they were brought before a military tribunal charged with genocide, tried, found guilty and executed. 86.141.140.240 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ceaușescu's trial was sometimes called a kangaroo court; but legitimate or not, it happened after he was deposed, making StuRat's comment strange. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was a kangaroo court, but it achieved it's goal of convincing any remaining pro-Ceaușescu forces to give up. The assassination of Qaddafi was similar, in this respect, although there wasn't even a show trial in that case. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Eliyohub, agreeable ISIS seems to be less of a priority to Assad, and the global forces will and have been pushing them back especially because of the Syrian Democratic Forces, with the recent launch of phase 2 of the Northern Raqqa Operation heating up.NoLegMan (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

NoLegMan, I converted the first of your links to what I consider a more convenient format; hope you don't mind. Note the leading colon to 'escape' it from its template function. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Congressional declaration of war, opposed by the President

It's congress which has the power to declare war, as I understand it, but it's the president who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. So what would be the legal and constitutional situation if congress passed a declaration of WAR (yes, actual WAR, not just a quasi-declaration authorising military action, of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution sort!) BY a margin large enough to override a presidential veto, AGAINST to express wishes of the president? Could the president simply say "I accept that us and country X are now in a state of war, but I absolutely refuse to authorise any actual military action against country X"? Or would the president be obliged to allow military action to be undertaken, despite his opposition? Or would congress be limited to taking steps which ARE within its control, in pursuit of harming country X, such as a trade embargo or the like?

I'm thinking of a hypothetical situation where, for example, two-thirds of both houses of congress are opposed to Trump giving Russia a free hand to shore up the Assad regime in Syria by bombing America's allies who were fighting the regime. Assume they were willing to do ANYTHING within their constitutional powers, even a war declaration against the Assad regime, to thwart this policy of his. Are they powerless? Eliyohub (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It has never happened before. So I don't know that we can provide you with an reliable references. This article by the Council on Foreign Relations may contain some background for the checks and balances intentionally built into the Constitution surrounding the powers WRT war being split between Congress and The President. --Jayron32 04:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The question comes down to how Congress could compel the president to actually carry out whatever declaration they've passed? The president typically initiates the request for a declaration of war, and the Congress typically accepts that request, assuming by that time that the need for the declaration is obvious (as with Pearl Harbor). The legislative provides the resources that the executive needs. If there was a disagreement about the declaration, the high court would probably be consulted, given the murky constitutional issues as Jayron suggests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember some factoid to the effect that the Korean War, or maybe it was US participation in WW2 or something like that, didn't officially end until the signing of some document in the past few decades (and the former enemy countries had already become US allies by that time). So yeah, in that picture there can be a declared war officially in effect, while there's no actual hostilities going on. If Congress declares war on Trump's hair, he might refuse to attack it and it's not clear to me that Congress could do anything.

As another example, the governor of California refused to defend Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry because they agreed with the plaintiffs (Perry etc) that the statute was unconstitutional. Hollingworth (a pro-prop-8 guy) took the matter to SCOTUS, which ruled that he didn't have standing. In the Trump's hair case, maybe someone could sue for a writ of mandamus for the Pentagon to deploy chicken cannons against it, but the issue of standing would probably arise again. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have been thinking of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The Republic of Korea and its allies are still kinda sorta technically at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as they have never signed a peace treaty, only an armistice to halt the fighting. And there's also the Kuril Islands dispute. See also: List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a recent question regarding the vice president and others getting together to oust the president. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There really isn't a clear answer, I'm afraid. Of course part of the issue is that since WWII, Congress has largely abdicated to the President its Constitutional powers relating to war, so in small-"c" constitutional terms, these days the President effectively decides whether to go to war. So, this is constitutional crisis territory. As a purely practical matter, in the scenario you've presented, if Congress has two-thirds support for challenging the President on the matter, they can just impeach and remove the President from office if they don't do what Congress wants. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Congress can declare a state of war, but it cannot force him or her to take specific military actions, nor can it remove the President as commander-inn-chief, short of impeachment. If the opposing country cooperates by not actually waging war on the United States, then there will be a state of war that is de jure but not de facto. States of war that are de jure but not de facto are actually fairly common in the world, so from a global perspective this would not be terribly unusual. It's inherently unpredictable as to how this would play out if Congress were determined to wage war while the President is not. Certainly Congress has many ways to pressure the President. John M Baker (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are a few obvious observations. Congress could impeach the president for not enforcing the Constitution. People who were found aiding the declared enemy could still be tried for treason. Indeed, the president himself might be impeached for giving comfort to the "enemy". μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Medieval pilgrimage in England

A few weeks ago, I found online a list of English pilgrimage sites and their associated shrines (eg Canterbury for St Thomas Becket and Durham for St Cuthbert etc). I didn't bother to copy the URL because I thought it would be easy to find again, but now It seems to have vanished. I think it was on Google Books. If anybody can find such a list, I shall be indebted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Does anything here help? --Jayron32 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What I was looking for was a list of about 30 sites; I have tried all the search terms I can think of, but no luck. However, I somehow missed the Catholic Encyclopedia page which is a start, so thanks for that. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a list like that, but this book has a short list of the most important sites, and this book has lengthy discussions of a large number. Warofdreams talk 14:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. I was thinking about a List of medieval pilgrimage sites in England without having to do too much work. Maybe something to do over Christmas. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Also Walter Skeat gives a list of a dozen of the most popular "English" (actually English and Welsh) pilgrimage destinations, together with a couple of refs for further reading. His Bury is Bury St. Edmunds rather than the Lancashire one, and his Holywell is the Flintshire one. And we have a Category:Christian pilgrimages if you need more ideas. --Antiquary (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Further sources:

• A list in Jean Jules Jusserand's English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages
• A whole two-volume PhD thesis called An Archaeology of Sensory Experience: Pilgrimage in the Medieval Church, c. 1170 - c. 1550. I'll be honest, I haven't read it all through, but there's got to be a list of sites somewhere. --Antiquary (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I found it in the end: Christian Shrines of Britain. Thanks User:Antiquary, I borrowed and amended the Google search term that you used in your the link above. The successful search term was "canterbury, walsingham, glastonbury, winchester". Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for the additional sources User:Antiquary; my cup runneth over. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

December 16

impoliteness

Hello everyone! To know rules of politeness, but refuse follow them, it's very exaggerated? 206.180.244.235 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What's exaggerated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a bad behaviour. 206.180.244.235 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't think Exaggeration is the word you're looking for there, but the links below may help answer your question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

We do have articles on rudeness, politeness, and etiquette that might be helpful. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"It is by politeness, etiquette and charity that society is saved from falling into a heap of savagery" (William of Wykeham). Not much to do with the question, but worth repeating in my view. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

U.K. Civil Service

Is the U.K. Civil service an organisation in itself or is it just the informally given collective name for all government departments and agencies, and some arms length bodies? What determines whether an organisation is part of the civil service? 82.17.228.129 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you ask something similar the other day? Anyway, the opening paragraphs of Her Majesty's Civil Service answer many of these questions. --Viennese Waltz 15:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 17

Question about the Ontario sperm donor law

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/ontarios-new-surrogacy-and-sperm-donation-law-is-both-awesome-and-terrible/

I have a question--could a man and a woman who want to avoid pregnancy have a similar agreement in Ontario in the event that their sexual intercourse results in unplanned pregnancy and in the birth of a child?

Indeed, any information on this? Futurist110 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.

You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".

Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What did people call James Thurber in high school?

From what I have read, James Thurber was known as Jamie in elementary school and junior high and went by Jim in college and beyond. One question I can't find the answer to anywhere: Did Thurber go by Jamie or Jim when he was in high school? Ta Chitsu Te To (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.

You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".

Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Half-brothers

Are there any known examples of half-brothers of the same father being born on the same day (not twins)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The results of a quick google search are rife with anecdotal tales in various forums/advice pages. Also, as a side, there are also non-twin half-brothers with different fathers (same mother) born on the same day (see heteropaternal superfecundation).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism

Why does fiscal conservatism often go hand in hand with social conservatism?Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it? When did you stop beating your wife?--Jayron32 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Not always though. Just read about the Republican Party. Wikipedia says its ideologies are fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and classical liberalism.

There's a book I'm not having much luck finding refs to. Maybe I don't remember the title correctly. I thought it was called something like The Conservative Coalition in the United States, but the hits I see are not the book I'm thinking of.

I think it came out in the 90s or so. The thesis was that American conservatism (you didn't say American but I think that's what you mean) is a coalition between three disparate broad groups: The Eastern Establishment traditionalists, the social-conservative Christian right, and libertarians. These groups don't have a lot naturally in common; what they mostly have is a common enemy, namely the increasing power of the Federal government under the program of so-called modern liberalism.

It's not a naturally cohesive alignment, but it has been remarkably resilient, I suppose because so has its common enemy. I thought it might break up under the stresses created by Donald Trump. (Actually I was hoping for it — as a libertarian, I would rather be aligned with the civil-liberties faction of the left, hoping to prise that faction away from the identity-politics faction.) But that does not seem to have happened, maybe because Trump won. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer is that conservatives value money more than anything else. To quote Richard Armour's definition: "A conservative is a man who saves his money - even before women and children." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a complete nonsense response to this particular question. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Hi, in this section the use of anti-SLAPP laws by the government (!) is mentioned. But is this actually realistic? I mean, why should a petition or anything alike be a form of SLAPP the government could claim to oppose to? I don't quite see how that is supposed to work. Thus, I'be very grateful for any explanation! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Exact repeat of this question. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the sole edit from an IP editor; it's possible it's not well considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

technically unresolved wars

In a second-hand bookshop I once found an almanac of 193x, opened it at random and learned that Liechtenstein was still technically at war with Prussia (or some such) because of an omission in a treaty. Does one of you happen to know how much truth there is to this assertion, and what other examples (may) exist, present or past? —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That goes back to the 1866 Austro-Prussian War - the article includes a mention of Liechtenstein. This link - http://www.berwickfriends.org.uk/history/berwicks-war-with-russia/ - discusses the similar situation of Berwick-on-Tweed still being at war with Russia (going back to the Crimean War). Other examples are here - List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity Wymspen (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The Berwick example is an often-repeated myth, discussed in our article on Berwick-upon-Tweed. Warofdreams talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A rather funny example is the "peace treaty" concluded some years ago between the mayors of Athens and Sparta, which supposedly was to end the Peloponnesian War of 431–404 BC [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

THIS! IS! SPARTAAA!!!! Spartans must be so tired of tourists who come to their town and say that. They need to make a well, put a trampoline a few meters down (not too bouncy) and charge admission to be kicked in. Ancient costume rental and changing rooms. Extra charge for the slow motion camera, doing it in similar weather to the movie. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

They probably get even by making lots of profits off the tourists, for their Spartan hotel rooms (empty, windowless, unheated rooms) and Spartan restaurant meals (bread and water).  :-) StuRat (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Korean War is unresolved, but it's more than just a technicality, in this case, as it might actually start up again some day. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Have warriors ever practiced intraperitoneal insemination?

One of the weirder things about mammalian biology is that the Fallopian tube is not a closed structure, but rests open on the surface of the ovary. This can cause ectopic pregnancy and has few obvious benefits. But in other species, such as sea slugs that practice penis fencing, the direct penetration of the body wall can lead to pregnancy. This also is apparently possible in humans and other mammals.[2][3]

Which begs a question: has this ever been done in warfare in recorded history? I imagine that a warrior tribe could charge hunting arrows or more specialized primitive missiles with semen, and hope to impregnate some fraction of the women of an opposed tribe by shooting them. If the tribes were distinguished by some obvious ethnic difference, this might lead to the ejection of the children to become recruits, or fusion of the tribes, or, well, anything, depending on culture. If, that is, it's ever happened! Wnt (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a story about a woman in the American Civil War who was inseminated by a bullet that passed through someone's scrotum before it got into her, but apparently it's a fake. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ideas about using an ice bullet has also been dismissed, which likely closes another firearm option. Besides, most modern countries don't define themselves by race, though I suppose the ever-loving Serbians might have found a use for something like that in Bosnia. I was thinking more about old-time weaponry and old-time warfare - arrows, spears, maybe a champion blowdart could penetrate? Wnt (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• You were perhaps thinking of this kind of primitive missiles ? ( but the keyword is stemmen, not semen. --Askedonty (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It might take some time to reload though ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What an odd idea. You're much more likely to kill your intended victims than inseminate them, especially with that miniscule target area. Would sperm even survive that particular method of delivery? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If the sperm stayed on the arrow head during flight, and if they were not removed during the arrow's passage through flesh and other organs, and if they hit at exactly the right point (with only a few millimetres leeway), and if it happened at exactly the moment of ovulation, and if a sperm managed to fertilise the egg, and if the woman survived the serious wound, then I suppose there would be a very slight chance of this producing a viable infant. It would also need to be a warrior group with a remarkably advanced knowledge of anatomy and reproductive biology to work out exactly what was required. However, capture and rape has always been a part of warfare, has produced plenty of pregnancies, and would probably have been the warriors' preferred method. Wymspen (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the leeway is that small. The whole concept of "intraperitoneal" is that things can move around very freely within that space. An ectopic pregnancy can end up in the liver! Also note that poisoning arrows and other missiles is ancient technology - I would not expect them to mess up that part of it. The challenge with timing of ovulation is similar to that in conventional sex, and a knowledge of anatomy is not required - as with ancient herbal medicines, someone need merely have tried it once and seen it work. So provided enough swimmers are introduced into the body cavity, I suspect they'd have a chance ... though I expect no sane scientist has done the experiment. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Inhumanities desk? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should start a new desk for the infinitely improbable. Alansplodge (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. For the most part, women have played only a supporting, background, part in warfare on an open battlefield. The warrior with a semen-infested dart is not going to see any viable targets during the 'hot' portion of the battle - only other men (with obviously a few exceptions, but they're exceptional). After the men have been killed or otherwise subdued, it's horrifically common for women to be considered part of the spoils (see Wartime sexual violence), to be raped or sold or killed. At that point, artificial insemination is theoretically possible, but still completely pointless - it is all too easy for the women to be inseminated during the rape. Nobody would go to the trouble of ejaculating onto an arrowhead in the hopes of hitting an ovulating female when he can use the arrow to kill the enemy and then rape the women at will. The whole concept is preposterous. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Did the Nazis say anything about the English Noel carol?

Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel born is the King of Israel. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The carol is not breaking new theological ground:-

'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel"'. Matthew Ch. 2

See also Jesus, King of the Jews for context (note that before 1947, "Israel" meant the Twelve Tribes of Israel rather than a country). The Nazis were not overly concerned with Christian theology except where it could be turned to their advantage and adopted a neo-pagan belief system for their own use. Theirs was much more of a racial antisemitism than a religious antisemitism. BTW, the carol is not unknown in German: Noël, Noël, Noël, Noël, geboren ist der König von Israel.Alansplodge (talk)

The Nazis had a well-documented dislike for Christianity, but did not want to take the flack for banning it outright. There are some things I recall reading they enacted like having Catholic schools take down crucifixes and replace them with pictures of Hitler, having churches keep Mein Kampf on the altar. They set up some kind of "Hitler's Camelot" (Wewelsburg) with pagan motifs and promoted Nazi art based on pagan German religion. To this day neo-Nazis deface their precious white skin with those stupid little runes that recall the awe and wonder that the primitive pagans felt when they ran across a rare highly enlightened soul who could sound out the words of the dead when they saw a bunch of them carved on something. I doubt that singing obsequiously about the King of Israel was a great way to be liked at party HQ, and I bet not being liked meant not being safe... but not all they did was quite so predictable as to qualify as a law, exactly. We have a whole article religious aspects of Nazism, I see -- they adapted Marcionism into a "Positive Christianity" to censor Jewish elements from their version of the Bible, so I wouldn't expect hymnals in those churches to include that particular selection. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Think that without a time machine this is pointless question to ask. Who knows if a prophet had INRI upon his cross. Barbarous also means Bar- rabbi. i.e. this may refer to a rabbi that was let off from crucifixion. So maybe, he did not have to raise from the dead. Religion and historical fact can often get horribly confused. I believe that Ἰησοῦς 'was' a historical figure (from latin records) which over time, religion, politic etc. has made a mush of it all. I even went to the trouble of learning to read Koine Greek in an effort to satisfy my my mind. Therefore, IMHO what the nazis thought is not worth thinking about. Not saying that “a”psychotic is not worth listening to. They often have amazing insights. But the nazis party where out of touch with reality. So take my advice and don’t' try to understand their mush. Think Joseph Goebbels.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Barbarous means "not speaking Greek" - did you mean Barabbas. That is usually understood to mean "son of a father" - implying that his father's identity was unknown. If it could mean "son of a rabbi" it could not have been applied to Jesus, who was the son of a carpenter. Wymspen (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, meant Barabbas (thanks). On the point that it could not have been applied to Jesus, who was the son of a carpenter. This is what confounded to Romans during their occupation. They thought they had the priesthood subjugated and thus the country but the priesthood were just the ceremonial “razzmatazz”. The faith was (and some might say still is) preserved the hands of the common rabbi. I.E., any family man who for pro bono publico reasons, is the local communities keeper of the faith. A simple carpenter can fill that role - should he so commit himself . Even Thomas the Apostle is regarded as a builder. So, the 'historical' individual Ἰησοῦς could have been regarded as a Rabbi by his contemporaries and a Bar- Rabbi. Which can get concatenated into Barabbas, even though he is is not regarded as a Messiah in the Hebrew faith.--Aspro (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that it was Bar-Abbas, not Ba[r]-rabbas, which would make no sense in Hebrew or Aramaic, surely? {The poster formerly known as 8781.230.195} 90.200.136.117 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

One last point, in England we generally sing The First Nowell rather than Noël. We can't be having French-speaking angels can we? Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have this in England? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not previously as far as I know. The penultimate line is germane: "We've ruined it completely so we'll all say 'Ah well'"... Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, it didn't catch on. More common variants are "and if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows (like a lightbulb!)/you'll go down in history (like the dinosaurs!)" and "Jingle bells! Batman smells! Robin laid an egg!" Are these sung in England? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There are more parodies of "Jingle Bells" than you can shake a stick it, if that's your idea of a good time. Such as: "Rust and smoke / The heater's broke / The door just blew away... Oh what fun it is to drive / This rusty Chevrolet..." And: "Yingle bells, yingle bells, yingle all de vay... I should have vorn long undervare on dat vun horse open sleigh..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Noël Coward is the only Noël in England. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Does that make him the first (and also last) Noël? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2017th Noel the angels did say oh shit what'd they do?, Armageddon's next year. No air, no air without isotopes, this is what happens when you give them free will. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't really get the relevance of whether Jesus was regarded as a Rabbi. The question is whether his father was. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, there are some who think that the Greek word tektōn, usually translated "carpenter", could be a calque of the Aramaic word naggar, "craftsman", which is sometimes used metaphorically to mean "scholar" or "learned man", and that the Gospels could have misunderstood Jesus' family trade. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that Jesus' father was God, does God qualify as a rabbi? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to refer to the historical figure as Ἰησοῦς and the spiritual figure as Jesus. The historical figure was an issue from a union between man and woman, the spiritual figure Jesus was born of a virgin birth which was an Egyptian conceptions. Keep those two thing separate and it makes not only both sense but provides sound foundations for what ever faith one holds to. The three Magji refer to a conjunction. Modern computer may not be able to prove anything but when a pope demanded a date for the present age to fix the calender, an a astronomer came up with that date that we now call 1 AD ( don't know what happened to nought AD but there we go) but computations confirms this - mathematically. All the other stuff about Joseph having to go back to Bethlehem is baloney . There was no census. It was Matthew writing this to suggest that a prophecy was fulfilled. God was not the father of Ἰησοῦς. A man was. Jesus (the spiritual figure) was not a son of god either (to suggest God being a Rabbi is far too demeaning anyway for an Absolute), because Jesus was of a virgin birth (in the Egyption concept) where he came about and is continuously reborn by Virgin Birth. Keep these things separate. --Aspro (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ιησους (squiggly upsilon doesn't work on my phone) is the Greek. His name should be Aramaic, no? (Jeshua transliterated). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Faith is not baloney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

December 19

The possibility of war between US and China

I'm looking for good academic sources that give some idea of the likelihood. I do not know where else to ask. Nobody here in Haikou seems to care. They will all be busy focusing on getting money right up until that bright flash. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a recent article from The National Interest: [4] - it's definitely a neocon-slanted source opinion-wise but the content is generally regarded as reputable. There's also a RAND Corporation study here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, NorthBySouthBaranof. Reading, learning, worrying, thinking about moving. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral sources: The Australian - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/risk-of-war-between-us-and-china-is-reaching-crisis-point/news-story/0993db6a89fa59caa09b54ad68168030 Reuters - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-commentary-china-apps-idUSKCN10I0WB Newsweek - http://europe.newsweek.com/south-china-sea-war-nuclear-submarines-china-united-states-barack-obama-xi-473428?rm=eu The Times - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-between-china-and-the-us-is-a-real-risk-0nzxpcrzd Wymspen (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wymspen. Due to blocks in China and registration requirements of the publications, I am only able to see a bit of http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-between-china-and-the-us-is-a-real-risk-0nzxpcrzd. Thank you, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The risk of war with a nuclear power would seem to prevent that. If China pushes too far (say invading Taiwan), the US and Europe would simply cease to trade with China, which would destroy the Chinese economy, and be a boon to other Third World nations that provide the same cheap goods the Chinese currently export. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source for this prediction of what "would" happen in a hypothetical future. --69.159.60.150 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. Thanks for the feedback. I must say I'm more worried about some country on the other side of the planet coming all the way over to make it their business and push too far. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to start a discussion about this. I just wanted to get sources that give some likelihoods. Even the hows and whys are not super important to me. I know it is all about money, and men playing with Earth like it's their own train set.

Of course, I always thought it illegal for one to make another fear for their life. Something about the "right to live in peace...". I'm sure there's a law like that, so it is probably illegal to for one person or a small group to make 6 billion live in fear. And that one or group is supposed to be there to serve and protect. Oh, the irony. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

One more, from The Atlantic, which has links to prior Atlantic articles on the subject. tl:dr is - no war. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Did your post get garbled somehow ? StuRat (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat. Now fixed; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the "tl:dr is - no war" part mean ? StuRat (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

tl:dr is a commonplace abbreviation of "too long, didn't read", and is normally followed by a pithy summary - in this case, reflecting Anna's question, I remark that the article suggests there will not be a US China war. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Mestizo, mulatto, and mixed-race people

In Social Studies, I learned that in Spanish-speaking countries, mestizo was a person of American Indian and Spanish heritage, and mulatto was a person of American Black and Spanish heritage. In North America, English settlers married Native Americans and Blacks. Yet, "white people" in America accounts for over 60% and American Indian accounts for only .7% in 2010. What happened to the Native American populations? Were they massacred in great numbers? Did they have decreased fecundity than the white settlers? Or were they absorbed by the European populations and their offspring "just pass as white"? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Disease killed off many Native Americans. Also, there weren't that many, relative to the people of European ancestry who immigrated to the US. It's an interesting Q as to why natives living in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking parts of the Americas seemed to have survived better, despite the Spanish and Portuguese being particularly brutal towards them. I credit geography, with tropical jungles being a better place to hide out from Europeans (who feared disease, alligators, ambush attacks, etc.) than the Great Plains. Those areas of the US that did have a similar climate indeed allowed natives to hide out, such as the Seminoles in Florida. On the other hand, areas under Spanish or Portuguese control that were more accessible to Europeans, such as Caribbean islands, did have their native populations wiped out, and then replaced by Europeans and African slaves.

Also, exposure to European diseases may have been easier for a tribe to survive if they only had to deal with one at a time, due to minimal exposure, and could develop immunity, than if they were exposed to all of them at once. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to know the answers, books like 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, its sequel 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, both by Charles C. Mann, the book Mayflower: a Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathaniel Philbrick, The Columbian Exchange by Alfred W. Crosby, as well as many others cover the ground of "what happened to the Native Americans" in exhaustive detail. The answer is basically twofold. 1) Diseases brought, unintentionally, by the earliest European explorers decimated the population of the Americas, often traveling faster than European settlement, meaning that Native Americans were wiped out by European diseases before Europeans even got there to settle. That lead to the myth of the Americas as Terra nullius, where early settlers assumed that few if any Native Americans lived in North America, and those that did lived a nomadic, unsettled lifestyle. In reality, until the generation before the Europeans showed up, they DID live in highly organized, settled, and complex societies. What the Europeans found was their society AFTER the apocalypse of the diseases they brought. 2) The second part was deliberate genocide which destroyed most of what else remained. For example, even though Native populations in New England had been basically been wiped out by as much as 90% by disease, the remaining Native Americans were reduced by a FURTHER 90% by wars like King Philip's War, either directly by the war, or by deportation and enslavement directly thereafter, meaning that by 1700, the Native American population in New England had been reduced to only 1% of what it had been pre-Contact. The story is much the same throughout North America (i.e. Trail of Tears, etc.) There WERE however some populations and pockets that remained and intermarried with White and African-Americans; see for example Melungeon. --Jayron32 18:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Our main articles on this subject: Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There were never many before colonisation. Most Amerindians were hunter-gatherers so the holding capacity of the land was lower than agriculturists e.g. Eastern Agricultural Complex and Agriculture in the prehistoric Southwest.
Sleigh (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas there were between 2 and 18 million people in pre-Columbian North America, which doesn't sound like not many to me. It is much smaller than the 50 to 100 million in Central and South America, but several million people is still a lot. For comparison there were only about 2.5 million colonists in the British Colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War. Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

North America has a population of 565 million today.
Sleigh (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

In a highly industrialised nation dependent on global trade – hardly relevant to the population dynamics of 200–600 years ago, and your linked articles deal mainly with earlier periods. In the 13th Century (AD) there was a single city in what is now Ohio that had a population of 30-40,000 – one of the largest in the world at that date, and it was primarily a religious centre: this hardly argues for a sparse population of hunter gatherers (though this particular city's decline predated and was unconnected to the European colonisation). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.117 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is going, but the Roman Empire depended on trade with all its known world, so it's not as if widespread trade is a new phenomenon. I hadn't heard of Cahokia, so thanks for piping to it, but I note that its population figures (the lowest maximum is 6000) are uncited. It was nowhere near "one of the largest in the world at that date", according to List of largest cities throughout history, which shows multiple cities then with hundreds of thousands, in some cases over a million, residents. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

criminal activity

Can somebody recommend me a resource that has *per-capita* heat maps of criminal activity throughout metropolitan areas? Benjamin (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That per capita part probably makes the answer no. To do that, with precision, say per city block, you'd need to allocate population by city block. Consider that, in the US, for example, the census is only done once every 10 years, and people tend to move around a lot in-between. You'd also get the odd situation that any crime in an abandoned city block would mean it has an infinite crime rate. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean "criminal activity" or "police reports"? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

December 20

Electoral College result in 2016 for USA elections

Re: Electoral College result in 2016 for USA elections. Are there "official results"? Or do these take several days to count/tally? I have read that Trump got the requisite 270 votes. But are there any final numbers? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The official tally is recorded by Congress January 6th, but CNN reports an unofficial count of 304 to 224, with Hawaii yet to vote. Dragons flight (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The final unofficial results from the electoral college (538 members) are: Trump 304; Clinton 227; Colin Powell 3; Faith Spotted Eagle 1; John Kasich 1; Bernie Sanders 1; Ron Paul 1. Neutrality^talk 04:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We often get a handful of outliers. The most recent was John Edwards getting an electoral vote in 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not really true. The last election with more than one faithless elector was 1912, and most of the elections since then had no faithless electors, so I don't think "often" is an appropriate description. Also it is worth noting from Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 that 3 or 4 additional electors attempted to cast faithless votes but had their choices invalidated due to state laws that prohibited their chosen action. Dragons flight (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There were 5 rebels in the electoral college in the United States presidential election, 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No in 1960, there was 1 faithless elector and 14 unpledged electors. Unpledged electors, a category that no longer exists in modern elections, are electors who are explicitly appointed with the understanding that they are free to vote for anyone they choose include someone other than the winning party's candidate. In the election of 1960, the state Democratic Parties for four southern explicitly nominated unpledged electors as a protest against the Democratic candidates position on civil rights. Of those who were ultimately appointed to the Electoral College, all 14 ultimately voted for Harry Flood Byrd, a segregationist, even though he was not on the ballot. Such votes are not considered faithless, since the nominating party and the voters knew in advance that they were unpledged. I'm not sure where you are getting the "5 rebels", but perhaps you are thinking of the split vote in Alabama. Alabama nominated 5 pledged electors and 6 unpledged electors that year. All 5 pledged Alabama electors honored their pledge. Dragons flight (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Where did I call them "faithless"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You called them "rebels", and assuming your earlier statement was intended to apply to the same, you said "outliers". I'm not sure what you meant, but electors who are faithfully doing what they were intended to do aren't really rebels, and arguably not outliers either (since nearly all electors do what they were appointed to do). If you were simply referring to the fact that someone other than the main two parties got EC votes, then that wasn't really clear from context. Dragons flight (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rebels, outliers, voting against the party line, whatever you want to call it. They turn up from time to time, but they haven't caused any trouble in a very long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Camp Dewey

Where is Camp Dewey mentioned here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The only Camp Dewey I can find reference to was in Uncasville, Connecticut – see [5]. That is probably what is being referred to here. It means that Edwin Hiku Akina worked there and lived in Brooklyn. It does not mean that Camp Dewey was in Brooklyn. --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There was also: Camp Dewey, Columbia, SC / Camp Dewey, South Framingham, MA / Camp Dewey, Philippine Islands / Camp George Dewey, Sioux Falls, SD. (from Spanish-American War Camps, 1898-99 period). There was also a Camp Dewey at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station near Chicago, but not constructed until 1917 according to this. I suspect they are all named after Admiral George Dewey. Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are so many philosophers childless

Looking at many of the great philosophers of the past,many of them I've noticed were childless. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Define "many". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This article, for instance, discusses this. And Socrates once said: "By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher". Brandmeister^talk 12:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because philosophers think deeply about things, and don't necessarily follow society's conventions? See for example Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate (MIT 2012) by Christine Overall, who specialises in applied ethics. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly the causal relationship is reversed. If you have children you have less time for philosophy. -Arch dude (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Prostitution before the introduction of currency

What we know about the non-ritual prostituion before the appearance of currency? Was it performed in exchange for goods/other services, on a barter basis and does it still exist in modern isolated societies that have no currency? Thanks. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Start with History of prostitution and History of money. As for current isolated societies, if they are so isolated that they have no currency, this reference desk is unlikely to be able to provide information on their sexual transactions. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not mentioned in our article is Shamhat, a character in the Epic of Gilgamesh who is a sacred prostitute. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been argued that the predecessor of money wasn't barter, but gifts and favours, and debts. (I think The_Origins_of_Virtue also discussed this earlier). In such an economy, would prostitution really be a thing? I'm not sure how it could be distinguished from people just sleeping around and expecting to get some benefit from it (and vice versa). Iapetus (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be the gift economy, in relationship to transactional sex. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Older than you think?. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The predecessor of currency was precious metals by weight e.g. talents of silver or gold.
Sleigh (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of religious identity in Islamic countries

I understand that law treats Muslims and non-Muslims differently in countries which operate under Sharia law or "semi-Sharia" law. But if a foreigner were to work in such country, how is she or he going to be classified? Do such people have to disclose their religious affiliation upon arrival? What about an irreligious person whose name indicates Muslim background? Can someone named (say) Muhammad ask to be treated as non-Muslim, claiming to have never been Muslim despite the name, or will he be branded an apostate? Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Does healthcare have to funded by the government?

I watched a documentary called Living on One Dollar (2013). Two economics students and two filmmakers from the United States went to rural Guatamala. The people there were impoverished ethnic minorities and thus did not speak the majority's language, Spanish, so they could just be farm laborers. But they had their own ways of economizing resources. One way was to put money in a pot. As time went by, if anybody needs the money to pay for a high-priced item like a good stove or someone's wedding, then the money may cover it. But the people struggled with disease and malnutrition and poor healthcare nevertheless. One guy has to use medicine he brings from home to treat his parasitic infection. But the idea of creating a non-government, non-profit program that helps the poor seems inspiring. In the United States, some people don't have health insurance, and for the people that do have health insurance, health insurance may not cover everything. My question is, do health insurance and social service programs have to be funded by the government? Can the people form their own non-profit health insurance program that not only covers medical costs, but also prevents and raises awareness of medical conditions (nutrition education, fitness education, sexual education), and the healthcare program is for everyone? My question seems long-winded, so to put it briefly, does healthcare have to be controlled by the government in the United States, or can it be funded by small communities and wealthy philanthropists without any government funding or intervention? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The British United Provident Association is an amalgam of non - profits. It operates in many countries, though not America. I have no doubt that if there was sufficient interest an operation could be established there as well. 86.185.150.23 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You should read health insurance in the United States, risk pooling, and particularly health care sharing ministry. The Amish maintain an interesting hospital aid fund, see this Reuters article. Whether these kind of arrangements scale up is another matter altogether. Neutrality^talk 20:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)