Humanities desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

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.

August 18

History of social equality

Which societies in the past 3000 years have offered the greatest level of equality.75.90.109.203 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Gini coefficient for one method of quantifying equality. --Jayron32 01:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 8#Origin of Kings for anthropological typology of societies (corresponding Wikipedia article Sociopolitical typology doesn't discuss equality/inequality)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference between apostate and unchurched?

Is there a (significant) difference between apostate and unchurched so that they deserve their own Wikipedia pages? An apostate is someone that leaves the church. An unchurched individual is, well, someone that is not affiliated with a church, especially someone who was raised Christian or have family members or ancestors who were Christians. Hence the familial-cultural relationship between unchurched individuals and the church. Is there a concrete or widely accepted distinction between "apostate" and "unchurched"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a significant difference. An apostate refers to one who undermines a particular church from within. An unchurched is does not necessarily undermine a church, and by definition, does not act from within. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it: The apostate is a former believer who has decided to reject their former beliefs. The unchurched is an unspecific term. In some contexts, it means people who were never believers. In another context, it means people who are believers still, but who are not attending worship services for various reasons. In yet another context, it can mean people who are and/or were believers, but have become apathetic about the practice of their faith, without outright rejecting it. The apostate is usually taken to mean someone who is more than apathetic or not attending worship services. The apostate is someone who actively rejects or speaks against their former faith. --Jayron32 02:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The unchurched article shouldn't be nominated for deletion then, even though it's really short and undeveloped. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deletion. That said, it would make for a fine Wiktionary article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary already has an entry and will not welcome an essay. Dbfirs 06:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, Sodom and Gomorrah were apostate cities, they were cities of the nation of Israel (Israel is synonymous with church). They were destroyed for becoming a stumbling block for the remainder of Israel. Ancient Memphis could be considered was "unchurched", as it was never part of the nation of Israel. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither were Sodom and Gomorrah ever part of a nation of Israel. The people of Israel did not exist back then, even their ancestor Israel had not yet been born when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. - Lindert (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, however they were nonetheless considered to be a stumbling block to God-fearing men. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

65.24.105.132 -- The word "unchurched" (someone without a current formal denominational affiliation or place to attend regular worship services) is linguistically parallel to "unbanked" (someone currently without a bank account). It has little to do with doctrinal heresy. The word "unchurched" is somewhat of a jargon term used within religious bodies to refer to one category of people targeted for outreach, but I'm not sure why the article should be deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious difference is that "unchurched" would only be used by religions having churches (primarily Christian and derivatives) -- Q Chris (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the British Royal family who dropped their German titles during WWI

Does anyone have a comprehensive list of British royals who dropped their German titles during WWI? Was it just the Mountbattens/Battenbergs, descendants of Prince Louis (who adopted the title of Marquess of Milford Haven, and Prince Henry or were there others? Sotakeit (Sotakeit) 10:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's everyone who went from Battenberg to Mountbatten, everyone who went from Teck to Cambridge, and obviously the royal house itself changing from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. Do you want a long list of personal names, or is that enough? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's great, cheers. Hadn't thought of the Tecks. Sotakeit (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the children of Princess Helena. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there are the unclear cases of the Gleichens and Torbys, morganatic countly houses which settled in England and were less closely related to Britain's royal family than were the princely Augustenburgs, Battenbergs and Tecks. Although the Gleichens kept their German surname and British styles, they were downranked. The Torbys, who were Russian émigrés and whose comital title was Luxembourgeois, were nonetheless caught up with the Gleichens in the same name-and-title-changing frenzy George V had to impose on his German-origin relatives during the latter half of 1917 (remember, some resisted: Louis Battenberg futilely volunteered to go title-less if allowed to keep the Battenberg surname unaltered, while his nephew Prince Alexander of Battenberg first dallied, then altered the document submitted for his signature, striking out "relinquish" and substituting "lay aside" with reference to his Hessian princely title -- until he was commanded by George V to sign the original version forthwith {he was often ridiculed by the other Battenbergs, before and since, for his pride and pretentiousness. But he got the Marquessate of Carisbrooke out of it, officialized the day before his 19 July 1917 marriage to a daughter of the Earl of Londesborough}). Countess Nada de Torby was safely married to George Battenberg in November 1916, thereby being spared her own eventual demotion but having to share in that of her new husband, going from "Princess George of Battenberg" to (presumably) "Lady George Mountbatten" on 14 July 1917 and back up to "Countess of Medina" on 7 November 1917. But her elder sister Countess Zia de Torby married 20 July 1917 Sir Harold Wernher, 3rd Baronet, so on 1 September 1917 King George granted her the style and precedence of an earl's daughter, whereupon she became "Lady Zia Wernher" {it's disputed what her title, if any, was for the 6 weeks between her wedding and the King's Royal Warrant}. FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing on TV the term "Princess of Teck," and assuming it was spelled "tech," I pictured the world's most capable technician, who could fix anything technical: radios, movie projectors, air conditioners,or computers. Edison (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shaftoe

Jack Shaftoe is one of the main characters in Neal Stephenson's series called The Baroque Cycle. I had always assumed that he was purely invented, and Stephenson has said as much in interviews -- so I was quite surprised yesterday, while reading Thackeray's 1852 novel The History of Henry Esmond, to come across the following passage: "Twenty ships were burned or taken in the Port of Redondilla, and a vast deal more plunder than was ever accounted for; but poor men before that expedition were rich afterwards, and so often was it found and remarked that the Vigo officers came home with pockets full of money, that the notorious Jack Shafto, who made such a figure at the coffeehouses and gaming-tables in London, and gave out that he had been a soldier at Vigo, owned, when he was about to be hanged, that Bagshot Heath had been HIS Vigo, and that he only spoke of La Redondilla to turn away people's eyes from the real place where the booty lay." This suggests that such a person actually existed at the right time, but I haven't been able to find any more information at all about him. Any thoughts? Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This search on Ancestry.com claims to have info on a Jack Shafto of England/Wales, 1837-1915 [1], but you have to sign up for a free account to get it. Also keep in mind that it seems to be a not uncommon surname, and a rather common first name. There are three Jack Shaftos on facebook alone, not to mention various phone directories and the Shaftoe spelling. I'm tempted to take Stephenson at his word, he'd probably be happy to share the history if he'd been inspired by some real rogue Shaftoe from history. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have given a little more information. The Battle of Vigo Bay referred to in the sentence I quoted took place in 1702, and had features reminiscent of the escapade in which Jack and his companions stole the Spanish gold (although in Bonanza that took place in Cadiz in 1690). I'm convinced that there is some connection here; I'm just puzzled about exactly what. Looie496 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as soon as I submitted I realized that the novel was probably referring to events long before the publication date. AFAIK, Stephenson isn't that responsive to press or fan inquiries. Didn't he say something once to the effect of "Please stop writing me, it will just delay my next book"? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any place that use some sort of reverse of two round system, voting system?

On the two round system, people pick the best and the ones with more votes (if he has more than 50% of votes wins), if not a new poll with just the 2 most voted ones is held and the one with most votes win.
Is there any country that use the reverse of that, where you pick a guy that you really doenst want, and all the guys excluding the one with the most amount of "not wanted" votes goes to a second similar poll and the one with least amount of "not wanted" votes wins? What voting system criteions would this system comply?201.78.190.123 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disapproval voting might be of some interest, though it doesn't seem to list any "pure" cases like this. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks the disaproval page shows anti-plularity page, its a little simlar to my idea, but not exacly (it doenst have the second step of the poll) 201.78.190.123 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What're the cheapest useful amounts of a physical thing in the continental US (or Hawaii)?

And what're the lowest prices on a label/sticker/tag here? (Real price, no spend $20 at Staples get a notebook for a cent, buy 2,000 lbs of coal for $20, and use it for cents per meal fire)

I recently saw microscopic bags of popcorn (1oz) for 25 cents. I wonder if the final ounce of popcorn is that useful (If I don't eat it, get not hungry soon - if I eat it, get too full soon) but it's there in print so I'll count it. Come to think of it, they're useful for people with kids. Useful, cause otherwise you could probably scoop out 0.01 lbs of cereal at Wild Oats for a penny. American, cause people that make $100 a year (some Africans) will probably sell you an apple (-equivalent) for a ridiculously low amount of US coins, and things like how many times more the cheapest purchase is than the cheapest coin is probably only determined by prices in this country (the penny will one day go the way of the half-cent coin)

Also, even a penny of tapwater can quench thirst but 25 cent transactions would require buying it more than one a day, so not very useful. The same with other utilities. We could only pay that little if they changed the account on the last day of the month..

When will they stop pricing things in fractions of a cent? (like gasoline?)

Why aren't coupons unreedeemable? I thought the smallest unit of American currency is the mil? Wouldn't that mean that something promising you 1/100 of a cent or even 1/8 of a cent is promising you something that doesn't exist, as it cannot be written in mills? Do they round, or do you need the whole 100 to get the cent? Would they just weigh them or guess if someone tried to do it for real, as it would take many, many times the counter's wages to count them than they could lose from giving too much? 172.56.34.244 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm having a hard time finding a question that we can answer amongst that rambling, I will point out that we have gone over the cash value of coupons before. And this addresses the 9/10 of a cent for gasoline prices. Dismas|^(talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the price of postage for a particular mailing rises by 1 cent, and you don't have forever stamps for it, then a 1-cent postage stamp is a useful item. --50.100.184.117 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you have to go almost a decade without buying stamps, for this to be a problem? Knowing full well that you'll have a ton of one-cent stamps on your letters at the end of your 7-8 year time between post office visits cause the postage rises frequently. 172.56.34.244 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What "problem"? I cited a 1-cent stamp as an example of something that is low-priced and useful. --50.100.184.117 (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My local grocery store sells bananas for 67 cents/pound (or there abouts). Bananas are about 4 to the pound, which gives a price of about 16-17 cents per banana. --Jayron32 01:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, bananas. I'm surprised they're that light, I would've guessed 3 to the pound. (I don't buy produce. Bananas aren't bad, unlike most fruit (sour), but I'm just a snack food kind of guy)

So unless something at Home Depot or Walmart is sold in small enough count (singly?) it looks like the cheapest purchase you might want to make might be something that's imported. Who would've thought. Or maybe you can buy a short 2 by 4 (makeshift door stay opener) at Home Depot for less? I not be down with the retail wood prices, yo. Specially not the wood to banana price ratio prognosis. 172.56.34.244 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could buy a single nail or screw which would just be a couple cents, if that. Dismas|^(talk) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this NPR story for people who tried to see if they could find anything to buy for a penny in Manhattan, and did find a washer for sale for 2¢... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a contractor who buys inexpensive items quite often, I observe that Home Depot will not sell individual washers, bolts or nuts for a few pennies. Instead, they package 5 or 10 or 20 in a sealed clear plastic bag at a higher price point. In Northern California where I live, local hardware stores or smaller regional chains still sell individual minor hardware items in bulk, for less than a nickel each. There are little brown paper bags and a pencil by the bin. It is the honor system. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much money you need to operate a gumball machine these days, but a dime or a quarter is likely enough to buy one item. I guess it's useful if you are a kid craving some bubblegum. --Xuxl (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table salt, perhaps. When I was doing baking projects for 4-H (early 2000s), I had to record the price per item, taking the purchase price for the store's amount of each ingredient and dividing by the amount used (e.g. if I use four ounces from a four-pound bag, the price per item is 1/16 of what I paid for the bag), and I learned simply to ignore salt: Kroger then (and now?) was selling 26-ounce salt boxes for 19¢, so the price of ½ teaspoon was somewhere in the milrays. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IF THE ROMAN EMPIRE NEVER FELL?

Hello, wikipedians i`m writing an alternate history novel, the premise of which is what if the eastern and western roman empires re-united against a barbarian threat and Rome became just one empire again. That lasted well into our current 21st century. My Question is what would the world be like in a social sense if the romans for example discovered america as a result of the roman empire never falling in the west. How would the world be different today if the roman empire were still around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.25.202 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the information at the top of this board: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The answer is: however is necessary for your novel to work, because it's your novel, not the Wikipedia Reference Desk's. According Philip K. Dick, we're still living in the Roman empire. You might want to check out the novels in Category:Alternate history novels set in Ancient Rome. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't really fall, it just evolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fell with one heck of a thump on 29 May 1453. Alansplodge (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

173.52.25.202 -- Don't want to discourage you, but Robert Silverberg published a novel on that topic over ten years ago, called "Roma Eterna"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article on it: Roma Eterna... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the reception section of that article might encourage op to build it better as they say ~Helicopter Llama~ 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Turtledove has also explored the idea in Gunpowder Empire. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, similarly, Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague de Camp. This is one of the more often used points of divergence in counterfactual history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't mean it can't be used as a point of divergence again. I would advice the OP to read these stories, see what has been done by other authors, and then try to come up with a new take on an old idea. Not easy (but successful writing never is)... we wish you all the best in your endeavors. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fiction, so you can do almost anything you want, but the European discovery of the Americas was a result of commercial and political competition among nation-states, which wouldn't have happened if most of Europe remained united in a single empire. Nor, arguably, would most of the technological advance of the modern era, a product of competition among merchants and polities in late medieval and early modern Europe. I would expect the surviving empire to remain preindustrial. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, one of the triggers of the major Viking raids and Norman conquests was the weakness of Europe after the Carolingian Empire split. A strong defence of France may well have led to more interest in Leif Erikson's western voyages, and maybe Normans would have conquered the eastern seaboard of North America. Rollo might have kissed Pocahontas (or her greatⁿgrandmother), not Charles the Simple in 911. With less of a technological edge for the Europeans, maybe the Native Americans would have had time to bounce back from the population collapse caused by European diseases, leading to a much stronger role for American Indians, and the American continents split into many more and more diverse countries. I smell a novel...Mr. Turtledove, do you read this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, aspects of the Roman Empire exist down to today. The Roman Catholic Church adopted some of the hierarchy and organization of the old Roman Empire; as the Papal States represents a continuity back to Exarchate of Ravenna and the Patrimonium Sancti Petri, creations of the Roman Empire. Of course, the Eastern Roman Empire continued in the East until 1453, and even after the fall of the Constantinople to the Turks, the Ottoman Empire considered itself as a continuation of the Roman Empire (itself having grown out of the Sultanate of Rum). The Ottoman Empire lasted until the end of WWI; so perhaps the modern state of Turkey has a claim to part of the Roman Empire. Then there is Russia, who itself claimed to be the Third Rome after 1453, and the fall of Constantinople. It is no coincidence that the Grand Duke of Moscow started using the title of Tsar (Slavic for Caesar). And then there is France, which has a state continuity back to West Francia, one of the divisions of Charlemagne's empire, who himself was crowned Roman Emperor in opposition to the Empress Irene, whom the west refused to accept as a legitimate ruler of the Roman Empire. Really, there's a lot of modern Romes. I could name even more, but this is enough of a smattering. --Jayron32 20:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget the globally widespread use of English, a large part of which is Latin filtered through French. And French itself is still regarded as a "universal" language. All in all, I think Julius and Augustus would be proud. (Even if there weren't still months named after them.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]