Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 23

= March 23 =

In the Republican presidential primaries of 2016, what happens to Marco Rubio's 169 delegates?
Re: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Before he dropped out of the presidential race, Marco Rubio accumulated 169 delegates in the Republican primaries. What happens to those 169 delegate votes, since he has now withdrawn from the race? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the first time they vote, they still must vote for Rubio. In other words, since Rubio can't win, their votes don't count.  If nobody wins a majority on the first vote, they are then free to vote for whomever they choose.  (Rubio may ask them to vote for a specific candidate, but they are not obligated to do so.) StuRat (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, that makes no sense.  On the first ballot, they must vote for someone who is not even on the ballot?  Really?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because you are not "in the race" doesn't mean you aren't on the actual ballot. Even dead people sometimes win. (United States Senate election in Missouri, 2000, Patsy Mink) Rmhermen (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That is being pedantic and literal. Even if his name is literally and physically "on" the paper ballot, he is officially not running for office.  He has removed himself from the race (i.e., the ballot).  I can't believe that a race as important as the President of the USA would hang its hat on a literal and illogical point of procedure.  What then does it mean to "withdraw" from the race?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * US Politics are simply insane. This is just one part of it. :-) "Withdrawing" means you stop campaigning because you have come to the realization that you can't win. In theory this then means that you can win anyway, in practice this isn't going to happen as the electors have promised to vote for somebody else, so they will. Even if that somebody, as you can see, is dead. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Joseph, that is the rules, nothing pedantic. And yes, rules should be followed literally. You can either advocate to break the rules (not a good idea in my opinion), or if you don't like the rules, you can campaign to have the rules changed. --Lgriot (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously, you need rules. And rules should be followed.  That does not mean that rules need be simplistic and/or illogical (as in this case).  There can be a rule that says: "In the event that a candidate drops out of the race, then this is what will happen to any accumulated delegates that the candidate had before he dropped out of the race ... a, b, c, and then x, y, z."  They can write a rule along those lines, no?   I am quite sure that the Republican National Committee (RNC) -- or whoever does this -- can anticipate that this very thing happens all the time (i.e., that candidates drop out).  And, equally, can appreciate that the situation should be addressed and codified in their rules.  No?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "They can write a rule along those lines, no?" Apparently they can't, since they haven't. As I said, YOU can write the rules. Join a party and campaign to get the rules changed. (Just not here, this is Wikipedia) --Lgriot (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So, according to your theory, they "cannot" write rules. And they also "have not".  So, everyone in the USA and the Republican establishment are all totally mystified as to what to do with Rubio's delegates?  As if this scenario has never occurred before in the last 200 years?  That's your theory?  Also, not sure what your comment means, about getting the rules changed in the party and not here on Wikipedia. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've heard candidates like this announcing they're "suspending" their campaigns, as distinct from "ceasing" them. As if they're just regrouping or whatever, and intend to resume at some point.  But they never do.  Is there some point to this sort of language?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. This came up before, recently, on some Reference Desk or another.  The answer had something to do with the intricacies of campaign laws regarding finances and contributions, I believe.  I will see if I can find the discussion and post a link here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the discussion about this exact topic: Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 February 4.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, the rules vary from state to state. Some states require them to vote for Rubio on the first ballot, others do not. The four alternatives are [1] delegates must vote for candidate; [2] candidate can choose to keep or release delegates; [3] delegates become free agents; and [4] delegates are re-allocated proportionally to candidates still in the race.  There's a breakdown by state at this Wall Street Journal article.   Requiring them to vote for the candidate they supported when they were elected makes a kind of sense, in that it allows you predict the outcome based on the election results; if you allowed them to vote for anyone on the first ballot, you could get entirely unexpected results. Note also that this is one reason candidates tend to "suspend" their candidacy rather then end it: it can allow hem to release their delegates from states where that is possible, and become "kingmakers" in the right circumstances. (There are also financial motives.) At present, there are 169 + 8 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 =  184 delegates of candidates that have dropped outl; of these, 98 will become free agents, 42 will be told by their candidate whether they are required to vote for that candidate, 39 are bound to vote for that candidate, and 5 will be reallocated proportionally.  - Nunh-huh 05:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If no one wins on the first ballot and Rubio has 169 delegates who owe him some measure of political loyalty, then that makes Rubio a very important person in the horsetrading that will lead to the eventual selection of a nominee. That could result in a cabinet position (if the GOP wins in November) or even a vice presidential nomination. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On the related point, does suspension keep the delegates on board? Supposing a candidate had no chance themselves but wanted to force a brokered convention, how could they stop campaigning in a way that kept a block that couldn't go the frontrunner's way? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your question. If you read the post of User Nunh-huh (above), that editor lays out the four different scenarios about what will happen to a candidate's delegates once the candidate is out of the race.  There are four scenarios and each state does it differently.  In fact, the article that was linked (here at: this Wall Street Journal article) has a great picture/graphic that shows exactly what happens to Rubio's 169 delegates (plus the 1 or 2 or 3 delegates of Bush, Fiorina, etc.).  Does that answer your question?  Or, I guess I don't follow what you are asking.  Please clarify.  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I follow it. When the candidate officially withdraws, they lose some delegates, which reduces their clout/political power, in that they can no longer release them in exchange for something, like a cabinet position.  So, to prevent that loss of power, they may very well do something like "suspend" their campaign, rather than withdraw, so they can hold onto those hard-earned delegates and benefit from them.  Other candidates take it even further, and continue to campaign, to rack up even more delegates, even though they have been mathematically eliminated.   StuRat (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still don't follow. Are you talking about a distinction between what happens to one's delagates if a person "withdraws" versus if he "suspends"?  Is that what you are talking about here?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I may be wrong.  But I didn't think that there was a difference between the two.  So, for example, whether Marco Rubio officially "withdraws" or officially "suspends", I think the same exact thing would happen with his delegates.  That's my understanding.  Maybe I am wrong.  But I think it's irrelevant as to whether Rubio claims to "withdraw" or "suspend".  His 169 delegates will still be distributed according to the post of editor Nunh-huh above.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If they would lose delegates by officially suspending their campaign, then they wouldn't do that either. They would just "take some time off", or whatever they would have to call it so they didn't lose delegates.  As you can see, it's a moving target.  Whatever the Party says they have to do to keep their delegates, that's what they will do, if they want to have any possible say in the next administration. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Does this quote from the movie THE THIN RED LINE appear in a book?
There is a monologue in the Terrence Mallick film adaptation of James Jones's novel THE THIN RED LINE that goes like this (I copied this from the IMDB page on quotes from the movie): "This great evil, where's it come from? How'd it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who's doing this? Who's killing us, robbing us of life and light, mocking us with the sight of what we might've known? Does our ruin benefit the earth, does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you, too? Have you passed through this night?"

Long ago, I recall reading or hearing someone say that much of the dialogue and monologues in that film actually came from another, much longer novel by James Jones FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.

Does anyone know if this particular quote appears in either of Jones's novels, or was it an invention of Mallick himself? If Mallick did invent it, did he borrow any specific phrases from the books? I tried googling a few phrases from this monologue, but the search results point only to the movie quote.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I used Google Books to search the text of The Thin Red Line and From Here to Eternity, and neither one seems to contain any of that text. Smurrayinchester 08:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! I guess Mallick wrote it. Better writer than I gave him credit for.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good stuff. Some commentary is at The Cinema of Terrence Malick: Poetic Visions of America by Hannah Patterson (p. 16). The title rankles a little, as every schoolboy used to know about the real Thin Red Line. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

USPS Super Hub
UPS has Worldport (UPS air hub); Fedex has SuperHub. Is there an analogous central hub for USPS?Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The US Postal Service contracts out its air delivery these days, but it used to have the US Postal Service Eagle Network Hub (where priority and express mail was routed) at Indianapolis International Airport – it's now a secondary FedEx hub. Smurrayinchester 09:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you know which company handles USPS's air delivery? Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it's Fedex according to our article. Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

War with ISIS?
Can the current ongoing conflict with ISIS be classified as a war? I mean, ISIS doesn't abide with the laws of war. They don't respect any laws, whether national or international. They have no problems with killing innocent civilians, even small children, without any justification. As far as I am aware, the laws of war require a formal declaration of war and a formal declaration of peace. ISIS respects neither. They just want to kill anyone who disagrees with their self-invented ideology. J I P &#124; Talk 21:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

}
 * Correct, it can't formally be called a war. That means no prisoners of war, only criminal arrests.  Personally I think we need to change that, so we can take prisoners of war.  That way, no trial is required, just a hearing to determine if they are, in fact ISIS, then hold them until such time as ISIS completely surrenders.  If that never happens, keep the POWs until they die in prison (or are at least too old to be a threat to anyone).  It's a simple way to deal with the tens of thousands of prisoners we may take, who can never be released without risking the lives of many civilians. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I know you are quite smart. Please reread what you wrote. and rewrite or delete it. Maybe I interpret it incorrectly but it seems like you are advocating treating ISIS as inhumanely as they have treated others. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, life in prison is not considered inhumane. Genocide, rape/forced marriage, ethnic cleansing, etc., are. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a quick emotional response, not a smart one. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a statement of fact that life imprisonment is not considered "cruel and unusual", at least by the US Supreme Court, since there are some 160,000 people so sentenced now: . StuRat (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * True but offtopic. And in those cases a trial was required (I hope!). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * POWs were not historically given trials, while the war waged on, just held until it was over. Consider the logistics of trying thousands of people, where the evidence can only be gathered at sites currently controlled by the enemy.  How could that possibly work ? StuRat (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, you said it wasn't a war, and that there would be no prisoners of war, only criminal arrests. Holding people until ISIS surrenders is obviously a bad idea, holding people until the war is over is obviously a bad idea, and holding them for life is also obviously a bad idea. Usually we hold people until they are no longer a threat to others or themselves, and if they are convicted of something then we can add some time as a punishment. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So then, reversing what you said: "Releasing ISIS members while ISIS still exists and the war rages on is a good idea". I believe just about everyone would disagree with you (except ISIS, of course).  There have been some attempts at "reforming" ISIS members, but with rather limited success, and the risks that they may kill again, and not in Syria or Iraq, but now in whatever Western nation took them prisoner and then released them. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dude, you are smart. You know that just because I say that X is a bad idea that it does not automatically mean that I believe that anti-X (the opposite of X) is a good idea. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe throwing molotov cocktails is a bad idea, but I do not believe that catching them is a good idea. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * He specifically and clearly said "Personally I think we need to change that, so we can take prisoners of war", ie the exact opposite of what you now claim he said. You might want to read the answers you get a bit more closely. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You may want to read the text I wrote a bit more closely. I am aware that he thinks that that should be changed. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In this case it's a binary choice, you either release them or you don't. If you reject one option, you must embrace the other.  I suppose another option is that you can just keep putting any decision off indefinitely, which is what seems to have happened in Guantanamo Bay.  StuRat (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not making sense. Binary has zeroes and ones. Here there are many options. You wrote about three options, releasing them after a surrender, keeping them in prison until they die or releasing them after they are too old to pose a threat to anyone. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Life imprisonment includes releasing people after they are too old to cause any damage. If you read my link on it, you would see that only about 30.6% of those with life imprisonment in the US have life without the possibility of parole.  StuRat (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there are many options. Usually we hold people until they are no longer a threat to others or themselves, and if they are convicted of something then we can add some time as a punishment. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Holding them until they are no longer a threat is exactly what I said. That presumably will be when they are too old and/or infirm to kill anyone. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If I would also make that presumption then that would be exactly what you said. But I do not, so to me it isn't. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And when exactly would you assume they are no longer a threat ? When they say so ? StuRat (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would politely ask them every fifteen minutes if they are ready to come out of the time out corner. If they promise to never be naughty again I would release them into the wild. In prisons, people evaluate the risk inmates pose to the outside world, and they write reports and based on that someone else determines which ones should stay and which ones should go. Of course this is a lot easier if the inmate is a local, but it is possible with foreigners too. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How would it be possible when you have no idea what war crimes they've committed ? All you would know is that they were ISIS.  Of course, they will all claim they didn't do anything bad.  And where exactly would you release them ?  Return them to the war zone where they were taken prisoner ?  Try to figure out their nation of origin and send them there ?  We've tried that.  For the most part, their nations of origin want nothing to do with them.  StuRat (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Imagine you have a group of, for example, 10.000 people. Some of them are (war) criminals, some of them are ratted out by local enemies or scapegoated, some of them are basically randomly selected. I don't think imprisoning them all for life without a trial is a good idea. And I don't think that it would be an effective strategy, because it would probably encourage others. On a related note, putting people in a (West-European) prison is quite expensive. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did include a hearing to determine if they are ISIS. I believe this is standard procedure for POWs, as the scenario you listed is not unique to ISIS.  As for the cost, if we add maybe 10,000 POWs to the 160,000 people in the US with life sentences now, that obviously won't be a cost we can't afford, and the cost of letting them go to commit genocide is far higher. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Right now you are bending over backwards to misinterpret StuRat so you can argue against him. Maybe if you instead tried to argue for something it would be clearer what you are trying to say? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, then you should explain how I misinterpreted StuRat, shouldn't you? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I must have missed the portion where he advised crucifying and beheading them. I definitely missed the part where he advocated burning them alive in cages. I missed the part where he advocated using chemical weapons against them, or imprisoning them as sex slaves. I missed the part where he suggested we make them convert religions on pain of death.  I missed the part where he said we should have our children murder them.  Or disposing of them in mass executions.  In short, I think that you, not him, need to do a little reevaluation of your own position if you think ISIS's actions are comparable to the actions suggested by StuRat. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet another quick emotional response (but you've totally destroyed that straw man). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet another unresponsive response. If by "straw man" you mean "directly addressing your comparison", then you don't understand what straw man means. By the way, emotions and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, though you seem to think so. - Nunh-huh 22:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet another straw man argument. Good work. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And yet another false accusation of illogic.  You said StuRat was "advocating treating ISIS as inhumanely as they have treated others". He wasn't. - Nunh-huh 22:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not say that. Your most recent edit does not contain any straw man arguments. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * True, QP only said "it seems like you are advocating treating ISIS as inhumanely as they have treated others." And now if we're very good, perhaps QP will tell us to whom it so seemed. —Tamfang (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To me, obviously. Thanks for this contribution to the discussion! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also note that the term "war" is often used in cases which are not formal declarations of war. For example, the War on Poverty and War on Drugs. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And that the idea that war requires a declaration is naïve, forgetting Vietnam, the Korean War, and other undeclared wars. The "laws" of war, such as they are, cannot be enforced by those weaker than those who contravene them. - Nunh-huh 22:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * the term "war" is often used in cases which are not formal declarations of war – such as some insurance contracts, which exclude loss caused by "... war whether declared or not".


 * Of course it's war. It's a military conflict of some significant scale. That's what war is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the common sense of the word, yes, but there's also a legal definition, which is quite important, as the Geneva Conventions and POW status kick in only in that case. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The "legal definition" makes no difference to the thousands and thousands killed by the war. War is war, whether some organization wants to call it that or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of ancient dates
How accurate are ancient dates with not only year, but also month and even day. For example, 12 October, 539 BC – when the army of Cyrus the Great of Persia takes Babylon. Or maybe less pivotal events, like December 17 497 BC – when the first Saturnalia festival was celebrated in ancient Rome.

How can historians know the exact day? Why wasn't the information lost across the millennia, change of calender, change of medium, change of language? --Llaanngg (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not very accurate or reliable. The historians probably copied that date from older sources. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Then, what's the point of mentioning the day? Wouldn't that be a useless bit of information? --Llaanngg (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't just assume a date is inaccurate. Julius Caesar's assassination date is given as 15 March 44 BC, and that's assumed to be reliable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but much of history is, in essence, useless information (that is why its fun!). Old sources are quite unreliable, and fact-checking was difficult without our modern communication techniques and methods of travel. Someone like Pliny the Elder wrote all kinds of nonsense. Some people claim the story about ostriches burying their heads in the sand came from him. We are usually unable to verify if a date given in a very old source is correct, so people simply copy them without worrying if they are correct. But in some cases, like for example when Jesus was born, people have spent lots of time trying to verify when he was born. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And you would need a lot of astronomical events. Besides that, you'll still have the problem that saying things like "three days after the sun went dark" would have been copied, translated, and basically changed. Llaanngg (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Some events can be dated exactly, by reference to astronomical events noted in their chronicles, e.g. eclipses. There is not yet universal agreement about what the Star of Bethlehem was, but more than a few scientists have attempted to pin it down.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That one is most likely fiction, since you can't "follow a star" to a specific point (with an exception for pole stars, which you could follow to either the North or South Poles). The author of that myth seemed to have a concept of a star hovering a few miles above Bethlehem.  But, since stars are so far away as to be considered infinitely far, from a navigation POV, they seem to move as the Earth rotates.  So, just as you can't find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, you can't find the city under a star, either. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No one knows what (if anything) the Star of Bethlehem was, so it's not safe to make any assumptions about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Stu, as I said, "more than a few scientists have attempted to pin it down", so they seem to think it's well worth investigating; and there's a considerable literature on it. If the thing turns out not to have been a "star" in our modern day understanding of that term, that doesn't make the phenomenon fictional. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To the ancients, most anything in the night sky except for the moon was a "star". Planets were "wandering" stars, comets were "hairy" stars. And it's possible that the Magi, presumably being astrologers/astronomers were observing something that the average citizen didn't notice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no known phenomenon which would look like a star, and hover above a city, and stay there as the Earth rotates. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Except the account of the Star of Bethlehem says nothing like that. The only account comes from [Matthew 2], does not give enough information about its behavior to indicate that its behavior was as you just stated, or really to make any extensive inferences about what the Magi actually observed to lead them on their trek.  It is fleetingly mentioned in three verses, and not described in enough detail to determine much more than that it was an unusual astronomical phenomenon.  -- Jayron 32 01:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * But StuRat always knows best, so we'd best cut to the chase and replace the text of our article with "It was most likely fictional. StuRat said so".  :) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cut out the snotiness, Jack. To be able to follow a star to a city, it would need to be as I described.  Otherwise, the star would move as the Earth rotates.  This also applies to planets, the Moon, comets, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you thought about a meteorite? (or a rain of them). They could appear to be indicating you a direction. --Llaanngg (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I missed a smiley, sorry. But really, this was never the place to debate whether the Star of Bethlehem was a real event or not, and if it was real, what it was. I've hatted this whole tangent. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a bit of detail about this in our chronology article, although not much. The process is also known by the much fancier name of the "art of verifying dates", and historians can spend their entire lives trying to align chronologies or assign a specific date. The further back you go the more difficult it is - for example, the dates in Egyptian chronology could differ by hundreds of years depending on what you're looking at (similarly for even older civilizations like Sumer). As mentioned above we can also use astronomical events, so for example we know (probably) what day and year the Eclipse of Thales was. For a specific date like the date of Caesar's assassination, it's actually pretty easy because we still use the Roman calendar, more or less. We know what date the Ides of March were in the Roman calendar. But they didn't call the year "43 BC", so we have to use other Roman sources to figure out the year. Fortunately the Romans left a lot of detailed information about their calendar. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, total eclipses of the Sun. The Eclipse of Thales that convinced the Medes and Lydians to stop fighting mid-battle is said by Asimov to be the earliest historical event that's known to the day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops, already mentioned above. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dating methodologies in archaeology & Category:Dating methodologies in archaeology survey some methods.John Z (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)