Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 October 27

= October 27 =

Why has Spain ceded Gibraltar?
Why did Spain cede Gibraltar to the UK under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and later even confirmed this situation? Soon after, in 1727, Spain would try to reclaim the territory by force and it remains committed to regaining it until the present day. --Llaanngg (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The British (as part of the Grand Alliance) had already captured Gibraltar in 1704, and Spain failed to recapture it (Gibraltar is extremely difficult to take by land, which is partly what makes it such a military asset). The Treaty of Utrecht was simply Spain recognizing that it had no hope of getting the Rock back and formally handing it over to stop the war - although the Grand Alliance was defeated in Spain as a whole, Gibraltar was such an excellent redoubt that they could have continued low-level conflict from it for years. Smurrayinchester 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And blockaded Spain's ports, sank Spanish ships that escaped the blockade and captured Spanish overseas possessions. Sleigh (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe these accounts could go into an article like Disputed status of Gibraltar, if adequate sources could be provided. Otherwise, the idea is only implicitly there. Llaanngg (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The real rulers of Gibraltar are the Barbary macaques. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder, given that the Grand Alliance was ultimately defeated in Spain as a whole, did Spain get a bad bargain in signing the aforementioned Treaty of Utrecht? Yes, Gibraltar could have held out as a redoubt, up to a point - but sealing the land border between Gibraltar and Spain is not that hard. It would ultimately come down to the ability of the Spanish to impose a naval blockade, to stop Gibraltar being resupplied by sea. This might not require actual ships - simply strategically placed coastal artillery capable of sinking any British ship trying to land at Gibraltar. If the Spanish could have accomplished this (a very difficult feat, as "Britannia rules the waves" - the Royal navy was the famous Royal Navy), Gibraltar would have eventually been forced to surrender, wouldn't it? So do historians view the treaty as a smart deal for Spain, given the military outcome on the ground? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know - I couldn't find any historians looking back on that. However, given that Spain did try the kind of all-out blockade suggested here (the Great Siege of Gibraltar, where the Spanish paid Morocco to stop trade, instituted a full naval blockade, and bombarded Gibraltar), and it still failed, it looks like there was no realistic way the Spanish could prise Gibraltar back. Smurrayinchester 09:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The historical three-mile limit was based on the theoretical range of smoothbore blackpowder guns on land controlling coastal waters - effective range of these guns was significantly shorter. If you check a map, very few of the Spanish parts of the coast of the Bay of Gibraltar are within 3 nautical miles of Rosia Bay, which I think is one of the historic harbours. And all of those would be within easy range of guns mounted on top of the rock. So blockading Gibraltar with land-based artillery would be effectively impossible before the invention of rifled guns, like e.g. the Armstrong Gun in the 1850s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Catholic churches in Rome
how many Catholic churches are there in Rome?--79.17.186.90 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Our Churches of Rome article says: "There are more than 900 churches in Rome, including some notable Roman Catholic Marian churches. Most, but not all, of these are Roman Catholic."
 * A full list is here, but it only lists six Protestant churches (the Assembly of God church meets in the American Episcopalian building) and three Synagogues. All the rest are Catholic, although some cater for non-Italian speakers. I'll let you add them up, but 900 seems to be a good estimate. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction, there is a list of about 100 "Protestant Churches" (which strangely includes a Mosque) near the bottom of the list, but duplicates those listed at the at the top, Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The website of the Diocese of Rome lists 341 parishes. These will be active, functioning churches. There is also a wiki devoted to churches in Rome which lists 1,179. This includes churches from other dioceses which are within the municipal boundaries of Rome, deconsecrated churches and even churches demolished in the last 250 years. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that list which I linked above includes a large number (perhaps 200 or more, too many to easily count) of "Catholic Churches: Non-parochial", ie churches that are not parish churches. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Deals Gap
From this video, does anyone know which side of the Dragon (Deals Gap the Swift semi truck is on (Tennessee or North Carolina)? Is the Swift semi heading to North Carolina or Tennessee? --107.77.234.85 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Text in the video itself and the description of it mentions THP. That stands for Tennessee Highway Patrol.-- Jayron 32 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Date headers
I notice that this page is no longer automatically creating a new level 1 date header each day. I have been adding them as we go along, but it would be nice to have the auto function running again. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nor does it appear to be automatically archiving older material as it used to. The list of questions is getting very long! Wymspen (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This has happened a time or two (or three) over the years. Usually this is a problem with the bot. You could try asking at User talk:scs or the WP:VPT. Thanks for doing things manually . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I asked SCS about this by another method. He's aware of the problem&mdash;this is what WT:RD is about&mdash;but has been too busy to look into it right away. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Scsbot is back in action after a hiatus of five days. Thanks Steve!  We don't usually appreciate the work you and your bot do, day in and day out, until there's a hiccup in the system. -- ToE 04:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What they carry?
What these Soviet soldiers carry across shoulders? I've seen the same stuff on other photos with Soviet soldiers in WWII, but never on other Allied soldiers. Thanks in advance. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a 'Plash Palatka', a piece of canvas that could be used as a rain cape or as part of a basic (or complex) shelter. See also, , . Nanonic (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought of it, but wasn't sure. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also possible that the soldiers could roll up their Shinels/Woolen Greatcoats, cover them with their plasche and wear them around their shoulders, tied with a belt like in . This roll was called a Skatka (with or withouth the plasche). Nanonic (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We should have an article on Plash Palatka or at least a section within Poncho or Tent (Tent) and Tarp tent. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an image of one being worn. Not too dissimilar to the British Army gas cape which could also double as a raincoat or groundsheet. I've always assumed that the Russians had a blanket in that bundle as well, but I can't find any confirmation at the moment. This way of carrying their kit over one shoulder dates back to the Napoleonic Wars at least. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an image here (bottommost image) of a blanket in combination with a platsch. The caption reads "Another handy thing, is that you can wrap your platsch around your blankets, then tie it all onto the Veshmeshok (Soviet Rucksack), and slap on a couple of canteens and fill with gear and you're ready for the march to New York City". Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This page for Napoleonic re-enactors shows how a greatcoat was rolled, the finished product being called a скатка ("skatka"?) if I'm reading it correctly, although a grasp of Russian is not one of my accomplishments. Perhaps a Russian speaking editor could help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've just seen that User:Nanonic has already told us that name above. Apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Negative numbers and the use of brackets
Does the use of parentheses in accounting to indicate negative numbers predate or postdate the invention of the plus and minus signs? Pizza Margherita (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only small parts are available for preview, but this book here, titled: "A History of Mathematical Notations" looks promising for your research. -- Jayron 32 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I have that book (both of its two volumes). It talks about the history of the minus sign but the accounting practice of parenthesizing to indicate negative numbers is not discussed at all. --69.159.60.36 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The usual practice in the old days was to indicate negative numbers in financial records with the use of red ink. Using parentheses for this purpose did not become common until the 19th or early 20th century, when it was desirable to publish financial records and using red ink was expensive and impractical.  This suggests that the use of parentheses probably was much later than the invention of the plus and minus signs.   However, I cannot say for sure that there were not some accountants using parentheses much earlier. John M Baker (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)