Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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.

May 20

Industrial power rate

Is there an updated version of this list[1]? That data is from 2002 so it's getting a little dated. Scala Cats (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What grows in the Fertile Crescent?

How is the fertile crescent fertile? I've seen pictures of that place, and it looks like sand and desert. Where is the food? Where is the water? Where are the lush green plants and fruitful trees? Similarly, there is Egypt. Egypt looks like a lot of sand and sandy-colored pyramids. Maybe the Egyptians had to figure out a way to catch fish? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even try to read the article Fertile Crescent before asking the question? I found the answer to your initial question in about 4 seconds. There's at least 8 major staple crops listed there in a single sentence. --Jayron 32 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do these crops grow in the desert? Are they really desert crops? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a desert. --Jayron 32 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following reference should be of interest:

Jan van der Crabben (23 February 2011). "Agriculture in the Fertile Crescent". Ancient History Encyclopedia.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Wikipedia's article on Jan van der Crabben is about a musician with no mentioning about studies of the agriculture in the fertile crescent. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong Jan. Try this one: [2] — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it still isn't a desert. here and here and here are images of the Tigris valley. here and here and here are images of the Euphrates valley. Here and here and here are images of the Nile valley in Egypt. Here and here and here are images of the Jordan River valley Those are the four main rivers of the Fertile Crescent. Certainly, there are deserts in the middle east, but not in the Fertile Crescent, which is well irrigated by these rivers and the hydrologic systems that support them. --Jayron 32 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how plants can colonize the land nearby a desert. I see deserts right behind the lush greenness in those pictures. What would impede the plants from colonizing further into land? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you stand nearby an intelligent person, it doesn't make you intelligent. If you stand right behind someone who can read and understand what they read, it doesn't mean you can. Same thing here. --Jayron 32 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of water? Dbfirs 14:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Nile and the Tigris/Euphrates were subject to regular flooding, so these rivers not only provided a water source but regularly dumped fertile sediments in the flood plains. Land even a short distance from the flood plain had neither benefit. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially high salinity (salt pans), the slight insulating effect of water on local temperatures, and sandy soils/hard clays/exposed bedrock being too loose/unbroken for plants to take root. Alcherin (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The flood plains have soil and water because of flooding, the surrounding hills don't. That seems to be the crux of the matter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture taken in a marshy area of the land between the rivers:File:Marsh Arabs in a mashoof.jpg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do humans think they own pieces of the earth?

Is owning property a humanly way to mark one's territory, but instead of using body odor, humans use language? But then, there is the idea that land ownership can be transferred from one human to another, especially by blood. What about the extraterrestrial objects? Who owns the moon, the sun, stars, the asteroids, and other celestial bodies? Is buying land just a peaceful way to own land instead of fighting aggressively for a place on the earth and defending it to the death? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagining a prehistoric tribe of humans, I think land ownership is a way to mark territorial boundaries. Humans tend to be highly territorial creatures and feel threatened when a foreign group of humans encroach on the property unexpectedly, consuming precious resources. The two groups of humans come together and work together to form a bigger group, because somehow cooperation helps both sides survive better. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land tenure is studied in anthropology.
Sleigh (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns the moon. International space law is governed by the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
Sleigh (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the treaties, the Moon is obviously part of the US... there is, after all, a faded American flag flying on it, as well as trash strewn about and an abandoned car sitting in the yard. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you accept that humans can justly write laws and treaties regarding ownership of the Moon, you have already accepted that they have jurisdition over it. Which is but another form of ownership. - Nunh-huh 08:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic tribes have existed since humans did.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomads in general consider themselves to have land rights or usage rights to particular areas and anyone encroaching on them risks a violent confrontation. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in formality though. See the conflict in Africa (as you've mentioned). Double edged sowrd.Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People own parts of the earth because they (or their governments) made rules that say they do, and enforce them. For reasons why people think this situation should exist, see Right_to_property and Property_rights_(economics) Iapetus (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage abroad

Hi,

If a man gets married abroad but didn't notify his embassy, is he legally married in his country of origin? If not, can he get married again in another country? And what would happen if the country of origin finds out? They wouldn't notify the country of residence and put their citizen into trouble I guess. Thank you for you answers! 114.219.39.107 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know royal members married internationally (Catherine the Great, for example), and the marriage was legit because it was solemnized by a cleric. So yep, your hypothetical person may be legally married in his country of origin and the residential country. There is also recognition of common law marriage. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the laws of the various applicable countries. It could also depend on what they could get away with. I recall an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? (U.S. TV series) in which Kim Catrall discovered that her grandfather had abandoned his British family, moved to Australia, and remarried (bigamously). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) As with nearly all things with a large number of jurisdictions, there's no simple answer for this. In some countries you do not generally need to do anything for your marriage to be recognised in your home country e.g. NZ [4], UK [5]. Exceptions would be when there is question over legality of your marriage, but in such cases you may not always be able to do anything. (I.E. You don't have a process to apply to have you marriage recognised.) Also remember that in certain cases, e.g. bigamy, the marriage may not actually be valid in the country where you had it performed (or at least you may have violated the law) anyway. However there are obviously some cases where a marriage may be valid in some other country but not in the home country. (Polygamy, underage and marriages where the couple are closely related, and issues relating to the sex or gender of the partners are obvious examples.)

In other countries, e.g. Norway [6] or Israel [7], you do need to register your marriage locally in some fashion.

Note for any country there may be multiple levels of recognition. For example, while you marriage may technically be recognised in the home country, local authorities and businesses may require some sort of proof and they may or may not accept documentation from another country. (Notably, immigration laws and regulations may require something beyond simple documentation before a marriage is considered genuine although this can apply to locally performed marriages too.)

I don't personally know of any country which makes it illegal to marry overseas without notification but it wouldn't be surprising. Per International marriage (Japan) and [8], Japan requires notification within 3 months of the marriage. It's not explained what happens if you don't notify, it may simply be it's difficult or impossible to get the marriage recognised locally (i.e. you may just have to re-marry in Japan).

Remember if you marriage isn't recognised locally, you could be penalised for anything you do which isn't allowed for an unmarried couple. E.g. having sex if the country makes it illegal for unmarried couples to have sex, or if one of the partners is underage but of sufficient age if married. In fact, since a number of countries apply extraterritorial jurisdiction to child sex crimes and the ages for these can be quite high, it's possible you may be in violation of your home countries' law even if you only had sex where you got married. Laws penalising things like bigamy, polygamy, underage or maybe some other types of illegal marriages may also apply regardless of where the marriages were performed. (And getting back to my earlier point, the local jurisdiction may simply not allow such marriages, e.g. due to one partner being underage or if the couple are considered excessively related or issues surrounding the sex or gender of the partners; and there may also be laws covering sex or other aspects of these relationships so their actions could be illegal, notification or not.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Polygamy in the United Kingdom for an example of some of the contortions this sort of thing involves. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the ramifications of same-sex marriage. A Saudi man and a Canadian man can get married in Canada; good luck having that union recognised in Saudi. And in addition to polygamous marriage, referred to above, there is cousin marriage as well. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that same-sex marriage related issues don't just affect a man trying to marry a man or a woman trying to marry a woman, hence the reason for my wording above. If one partner was assigned male or female at birth but considers themselves female or male; and the other partner is of the opposite gender, they may not classify themselves as a same-sex couple. However some countries will refuse to recognise the person's gender identity or may require certain conditions which aren't met. If they also don't allow same-sex marriage, it's unlikely they will recognise any marriage (assuming it's only one of the partner's who's gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth). Yet another country may recognise the gender identity and therefore recognise a marriage, even if they don't recognise same-sex marriage. (It's nominally possible a third country won't recognise the gender identity but does recognise same-sex marriage so will allow marriage.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Greece

Looking at various maps it seems that they all differ regarding the depiction of the German occupation zone in Greece during WWII. Take a look at these examples: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Greece_Prefectures_1941-44.png https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Map_of_Greece_during_WWII.png https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Triple_Occupation_of_Greece.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Occupation_de_la_grece_(1941-1944)_-fr.png?uselang=fr https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/East/Balkans/maps/AG/AG-Balkans-2.jpg https://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/map/lc/image/gre76060.gif Is there some kind of reference, like an official map from that time, showing the real borders? Thanks! --151.41.178.80 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the maps are largely identical with only small variations (precise borders and some of the Aegean islands), except for the ibiblio one that seems to omit the German zone by the Turkish border and Italian zone on Crete, and shifts the German-Italian border far to the east Alcherin (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. They differ in so many places that I honestly don't know how to replicate. --151.41.178.80 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec torture

What is the word for the group of mostly kids who were tortured and experimented upon in Quebec some 70-odd years ago. I believe its at least partially a French word. (2 words I think). Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of the Duplessis Orphans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it may have been the Dionne quintuplets, they were from Ontario, however, at around the same time period. --Jayron 32 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European countries becoming Muslim-majority countries

How long will it be before certain European countries such as Germany become Muslim-majority countries if current trends of mass Muslim immigration combined with low birth rates continue?96.36.40.53 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Europe will stop taking Muslim immigrants before then. Look at Britain, despite considerable drawbacks stopping immigration was enough to make Brexit win by a few tenths of a percent while it is still 85% white and Trump won so America can have a wall. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A study says that Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2070, but the same report claims that Muslims will make up only 10 percent of Europe's population [9]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's so long from now the demographic transition will probably happen and the Muslim population will never rise much above 10%. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer really depends on what projected rates of future immigration and birth rates you use, since you'd have to extrapolate the data. Alcherin (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a valid historical example see Reconquista. You may also research the demography of the Americas where the immigration of Europeans, Africans and other ethnicities had some consequences. Homo sapiens vs Homo Neantahliensis is also interesting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain European countries already are muslim majority/plurality (Bosnia (Sarajevo/Federation, in particular) and Albania; with significantly large minorities in Macedonia and Bulgaria.

Also, in that vein, don't forget about conversion by natives. Similarly, Europe was Christianized too (with Saapmi's being the last). So never say never.

Also per the immediate above, also Aus/NZ and Africa were not originally Christian nor Muslim but now constitute not far from 100%. (some syncretic animism in the latter and atheism/agnosticism in the former.) While E/ Timor and Philippines are also an example. For that matter Arab paganism too.Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons outlined by Adam Bishop, I'm reluctant to answer this but since it already has so many answers perhaps it's worth pointing out that you should expand conversion, to include people simply completely giving upon religion (or changing religion without anyone trying to convert them). In other words the rate of loss and gain or religious followers separate from birth and immigration. Anyone who tells you they can predict any of these trends should give me money since they're clearly a real Nostradamus so must have more than they know what to do with. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a valid point.Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, this is some dumb Eurabia conspiracy shit. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that going to be Shia or Sunni? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe , defiantely Sunni. ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian woman's surname

For the purpose of alphabetization in WP categories (via DEFAULTSORT), which is the main surname of prominent midwife educator Aisha Moh’d Kazaure who hails from northern Nigeria? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Hausa don't use "surnames" in the Western sense. They usually don't have a "family" name shared by the whole family. They have a given name (usually Arabic and they can acquire other names throughout their lives), a patronymic, and sometimes another name to differentiate them from others with the same given name/patronymic sequence, such as a title, a grandfather's name or a geographical name. In this case, "Aisha" is the given name. "Moh'd", a contraction of Muhammad, is likely the patronymic. "Kazaure" indicates that she has roots in the Kazaure district of Nigeria. When Hausa are required by Westerners to indicate which is their "surname" it is often a matter of personal choice, so it's up to the individual. I believe, however, that in cases like this where the name is basically "Aisha, daughter of Mohammad, from Kazaure", the patronymic (Moh'd) is most likely to be the surname. This might have some helpful information: "Hausa Names".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the overview you've provided, my inclination is to leave her entry alphabetized under "A" for her given name, as it's likely this is how she's known and certainly matches the usage on the page I linked in the query, including the cited references. One, from the Edo State page on nairaland.com, refers to another program whose contact persons are "Dr. Mrs. Joy" and "Dr. Mrs. Grace." This offers insight into usage elsewhere that we can appropriately (?) adopt. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]