Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 8

= February 8 =

Per-person tax rate comparison figures
Hi, I want to write a section on the Neoliberalism wikipedia page about whether or not a neoliberal economic system allows its citizens to pay less income tax compared to citizens in other economic systems. I have looked online for IMF and World Bank figures regarding this, but haven't been able to find any. Could you guys give me a lead? Thank you 202.49.159.94 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's such a thing as pure neoliberal economy in the real world -- certainly not among the OECD countries -- so I'm not sure what you'd be comparing... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So how would one go about figuring out which countries have the most neoliberal economies, even if not "pure", to give the OP some tips? Or any studies on the link between the relative Neoliberalism of an economy, and income tax rates? (The situation in Dubai seems very neoliberal to me, with the inevitable mass exploitation, and they have a zero income tax rate or something? So maybe the OP is onto something here)., I can see you'd be a passionate opponent of neoliberalist economics from what you write on your personal talk page, but you're a professional economist - do you have an expert opinion? Any other economists who contribute to Wikipedia who can be pinged? Eliyohub (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For readers' convenience, the mentioned article link is Neoliberalism. Loraof (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You may find useful data at www.doingbusiness.org, but please be careful about starting your research with a preconceived notion as to its outcome. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Exporting non-tangible non-services
Under US federal law, if you're a broadcast-media company (TV, radio, etc., regardless of whether you broadcast over the airwaves, via cable, via satellite, or some other way) and you enable a similar foreign company to reproduce your signals (under conditions that would cause your actions to be defined as an "export" if you were sending physical products abroad), have you exported your signals? Or what if you're really a broadcaster, located in a city near the Canadian or Mexican borders, and people on the other side of the border receive your broadcasts: again, does this make you an exporter? You're not exporting any physical objects (you're just causing electrons to move around), and you're not really providing any services to foreigners, but the traditional concept of import-and-export was developed before electronic telecommunications developed. Everything I'm finding with Google is related to Import and export of data and unrelated to international trade. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the article titled Border blaster help inform your research in this area? -- Jayron 32 02:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you (never heard the term before), but no; I see comments that would be relevant to stations in Detroit, Buffalo, Frostbite Falls, etc., but if there's anything in there about export regulations, I didn't see it. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume a lot of what you're exporting here is Intellectual property (much of which the broadcaster is licensed to use, but does not necessarily own outright), so how would it be different than say, a software company such as Microsoft? I definitely know that there are regulations on software exports, including online exports (where no physical medium changes hands, simply a download). I read the terms and conditions (am I nuts?), and they often include clauses banning the buyer/user from using or bringing the software into countries the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on. Obviously not particularly enforceable, but the clause is there. Also, there was (is?) a rather pointless U.S. ban on exporting Encryption software beyond a certain strength to foreign countries. "Horse", "stable", and "bolted" spring to mind on this? I'd say this law has done zero to reduce the availability of encryption software outside the U.S. - simply caused difficulties for legitimate software vendors whose software happens to include encryption as a necessary feature (e.g. web hosting software). But my point is, intellectual property is seemingly subject to certain export regulations.
 * Don't know specifically about broadcasts, but note the issue of Copyright licencing for the broadcaster for those things he doesn't own (e.g. broadcasts of sports games), but has simply bought the rights to broadcast to a specific market. He'd have to negotiate it with the rights holder (in sports, usually the particular sports competition's governing body, I would think, such as the local FA). (EU "free trade zone treaties" have caused issues with restricting such broadcasts within the EU. It has come before the courts. See the big precedent at ). But this is not an "export regulation" issue as such.
 * As to "stray" signals, the issue of radio interference could be a regulatory one, if you're interfering with signals on the other side of the border. If it's giving the other country grief, such interfering with their own radio signals and transmissions, they may well take action by complaining to the regulator in the broadcaster's country (or possibly via diplomatic channels), and there will likely be international conventions or treaties covering such things, enshrined in domestic law, which force the broadcaster's country to take action. Note that this is not often obeyed between enemies, even those not technically at war with each other - the activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for example, would no doubt have been fiercely opposed by the countries at whom the broadcasts were aimed, but it did not stop anyone. North and South Korea have done similar propaganda broadcasts into the other's territory, but they are explicitly de jure (though hardly de facto) at war with each other, so such rules may not apply. Eliyohub (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Betsy DeVos and National Heritage Academies
Is there a connection between Betsy DeVos and the Charter Management Organization National Heritage Academies. Both are from Western Michigan and are closely linked with the Michigan GOP. --67.188.61.95 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For readers' convenience, the wikilinks are Betsy DeVos and National Heritage Academies. (As far as I can see neither mentions the other, for what it's worth.) Loraof (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd conditions in sentencing in the US justice system.
Noticed this in the Guardian today: Idaho judge says rape is 'a direct consequence of the social media system'. The judge made no extramarital sex a condition for the defendant. I've heard similar stories over the years, for example recently one mandating some kids sentenced for racist graffiti to read books about the civil rights movement etc (here). Here in the UK, I've never heard about such conditions. What is the legality of them? How does it work? It seems like judges can make just about anything a condition, but I'm sure that's not the case. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Judge Stoker's judgements should be seen as part of a longer context: www.change.org/p/idaho-judicial-council-remove-judge-randy-stoker-from-the-bench-for-decision-in-john-howard-rape-case Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does have an article titled Criminal sentencing in the United States. Be aware that, in the U.S., there are over 50 different systems (the 50 states, DC, the federal system) and as such, 50 independent methods and guidelines for sentencing which do not coordinate in any way.  So, the guidelines for sentencing in Idaho are particular only to Idaho, and would not be the same as other states, except by coincidence.  There are some national standards established by the United States Constitution, particularly the sixth, seventh, eighth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.  Prior to the late 19th century, these amendments ONLY applied to the Federal government and not the states, however under the doctrine of Incorporation, the courts consistently found that the 14th amendment's wording extended federal protections under the United States Bill of Rights extended to state law as well as federal law.  However, that being said, so long as a sentence is not adjudged to be "cruel and unusual" or it does not directly violate due process or other principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights or other parts of the Constitution, there is no federal standard.  -- Jayron 32 15:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So basically, as long as it is not specifically banned by either state of federal law, a judge can essentially sentence someone to anything? With the proviso that it can then be challenged if possibly 'cruel and unusual'? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure there are some other limits. For example, I doubt a judge could get away with a probation condition that required the defendant to paint the judge's house, even if that's not especially cruel.
 * But the key thing here is that it isn't a sentence. It's a condition of probation; that's a different thing.  Judges in general can only impose the sentences that are specifically provided for in the text of the statute.  But they have much more leeway in saying, if you don't want to feel the full weight of the maximum sentence, here's what you have to do. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and once challenged, it becomes enshrined in case law as such. Many judges that have a reputation for "creative sentencing" are eventually not judges anymore.  The judge for the case cited above is in the process of being removed from the bench.  So, yeah, judges try to do insane things sometimes.  The systems exist to check them, and it does happen.  -- Jayron 32 15:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A relevant article is Probation, which is what this case involves. When a judge sentences someone to prison, he may, depending on the jurisdiction and the crime, be somewhat constrained as to the prison term imposed. But my impression (sorry, OR) is that in all US jurisdictions judges have very wide latitude in the probation conditions they impose. Often the probation is in lieu of a prison term or part of a prison term, so the convict would always have the option of rejecting (or quickly violating the terms of) the probation and choosing prison instead. In that sense, the probation with its conditions is viewed as less harsh than the prison sentence. Loraof (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, despite how this is presented in the tabloids, the judge is simply requiring that someone on probation obey all laws. And, even though it is the 21st century, Idaho has a law against fornication.   It's much less improvisational than the usual probation requirement that the person forego all alcohol and all fraternization with former criminal colleagues, both of which are legal. - Nunh-huh 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe in some technical sense. Idaho may well have such a law on the books (I haven't checked) but it's hard to imagine that it would survive a court challenge, after Lawrence v. Texas and so on.  Such a challenge is unlikely for laws that are never enforced, but for most purposes I think it's reasonable to say there is no such law. --Trovatore (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point well made, but I do feel I need to point out that the Guardian is NOT a tabloid, but a quality broadsheet. Good answers overall to this question though, something I was wondering about myself. Fgf10 (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The imputation here is that tabloids are not quality papers.  What about The Times?   Anyway, the Guardian is not a "broadsheet" - its "Berliner" format is rather smaller. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tabloid and broadsheet are used to indicate types of newspapers, not the actual format they're printed on. Confusing, I know. Tabloids (aka red tops, see tabloid journalism) are the sensationalist nonsensical papers (Sun, Mirror etc), broadsheets the quality papers (Times, Guardian, Telegraph etc). Fgf10 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is such a thing as "tabloid journalism" but looking at this morning's "Daily Mirror" I wouldn't describe it as "nonsensical".  Page 3 has the story "Tom Jones dates Elvis' widow" and page 5 "Cilla son tips Vicky as host of Blind Date".   Are you saying these stories are made up?   Who describes the Times as a broadsheet newspaper? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys do realize that linguistics is a thing, right? That words and their meanings can change and vary over time?  It's something that happens.  The word tabloid has two related meanings with regards to a newspaper: It can be used to describe a printing format (that is, the size of paper and orientation of the text) AND it can be used to describe a style of journalism and writing (loud colors, attention grabbing headlines, sensationalist language, etc.)  There's no sense in talking past each other when a) you're each using a different meaning of "tabloid" here and b) you also both already knew that, but are trying to show up each other by pretending not to know that the OTHER person is using a different meaning.  In the off chance that you DIDN'T know these words and their etymology, you can read about the first meaning (the layout of the paper) at Tabloid (newspaper format) and about the second meaning (the style of writing) at Tabloid journalism.  Just to demonstrate the difference, the Boston Herald is a tabloid format paper that is a highly respected source of journalism. -- Jayron 32 15:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, the equivalent of these probation conditions in Britain was until recently the unusual ASBO. There are some examples of some in our article and some more at BBC News. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Can businesses predict when their sales will plateau?
There are limited customers in the world, and many businesses compete for the same customers. So, if a business expands, then it eventually must plateau because of the finite number of customers. Can businesses predict this? 107.77.192.200 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup. See Product lifecycle for an overview of the prevailing work in this area.  -- Jayron 32 15:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And also Diffusion of innovations, which has this graph which shows roughly how this modeled mathematically. Smurrayinchester 16:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * They can certainly attempt the prediction, but there are many confounding variables, like what percentage of the market they will have, the total size of the market (some potential customers may not buy any, while others buy many), how long before the item needs replacement, and when the item will be replaced by newer technology. The general state of the economy also plays a part, as does access to foreign markets. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

What size of vehicle starts to cause clearance difficulties in the US or require extra lights or reflectors?
Things like being unable to fit in gaps designed for vehicles to go through, the vehicle sticking out too far from some parking spaces (besides the "compact car only" spaces), being required to have extra lights or reflectors in some or all jurisdictions because it's too big, being unable to do 3-point turns in narrow streets, space issues when between vehicles in some parking lots (imagine an F350 with dual rear wheels between F350s with dual wheels lol) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Parking garages are likely to be the limiting factor, with some not even allowing vans or pick-up trucks. They also tend to require sharp turns.  Another tight spot is gas stations, where you might have trouble maneuvering, especially when it's full of other vehicles.  This varies by location, though, with gas stations on small lots in cities being more problematic than those with large lots, like along highways, in rural areas.  StuRat (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also note that sports cars may have a ground clearance problem, causing them to "bottom out" when going over a lump, which often includes the entrance to a parking area. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also vehicles over a certain height cannot fit under bridges. And in construction zones, some vehicles may be too wide. Don't have any feet-and-inches figures for you, though. Loraof (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oversize load will likely be of interest. A Web search for "oversize load" appears to give some good results. There's really no single answer. State vehicle codes set limits for street-legal vehicles, but just because something's street-legal doesn't mean it can go anywhere without issues. Here in Southern California it's common to observe the spectacle of big rigs making tight turns on surface streets, though they usually manage it (sometimes with a little difficulty). It does seem like every couple years or so the local news reports on a truck driver who didn't pay attention to bridge clearances and struck a bridge that was too low for them to fit under. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Many problems are caused by lorry drivers blindly following their satnavs down unsuitable roads.  Incidents are not at all rare - there was one very recently., .   I know someone who had exactly the same experience as the people on the top deck of the party bus (luckily she was not hurt). 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Our article Automotive lighting says: "In the US, vehicles over 2,032 mm (80 inches) wide must be equipped with three amber front and three red rear identification lamps... The purpose of these lamps is to alert other drivers to the presence of a wide (and usually, tall) vehicle". Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Response to the lorry drivers blindly following their satnavs — here in Virginia, where every rural road is a state highway, it's a good deal harder for computerised navigation to distinguish between actually significant local roads and tiny ones. When you're driving on major highways on the edge of the mountains, it's actually rather common to see signs at intersections telling trucks not to take the side road, with inscriptions such as "GPS ROUTING NOT ADVISED" (for example, go to 37.30075°N, -80.55583°W, put Street View in the westbound lanes, and look west) presumably because some trucker decided to take the route and soon learnt to regret it.  Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie
Hello. I'm having trouble finding out the motive for the murder of Twining in The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie. Anyone with better googlefu can help? Thanks. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the book available where you live? Have your searched Google for commentaries on the book? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * None of the plot summaries that I found explain it, but I found this Google Books preview which says: "When Mr Twining threatened to expose them [Stanley and Bonepenny who had the stolen stamps] they had killed him, probably by bashing his head in with a brick...". Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the old slogan "You deserve a brick today." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * After a lot of Google searching, apparently there was a 1971 McDonald's advert in the US called "You deserve a break today", which was later paraphrased by a protester in Boston on a note attached to a brick. You probably had to be there.  Alansplodge (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you Alansplodge. I just could not find in the book. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Silent Legislators
Has there ever been a politician in any legislature of the world who never voluntarily chose not to spoke during the entirety of a legislative session (excluding any individual who may be on these councils with no rights to speak that is)?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In many places, junior "freshman" members may be expected not to speak formally. That is, not to address the assembly.  Of course, one-on-one conversations are still allowed. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I guess, possibly, if there have ever been any legislators with muteness or some similar serious speech disorder, they may also have chosen not to address the assembly, but I don't know if there ever have been any such. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're requiring sound for speaking, I wonder if there have been any deaf legislators who prefer sign language who have chosen to only use sign language even if not mute. Mojo Mathers NZ's first deaf MP is not mute abd per our article only learnt sign language in the late 2000s and generally communicated orally. So perhaps not surprisingly she communicated mostly or completely that way in her maiden statement although a sign language intepreter also translated her speech . Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not exactly what you asked for, but abstensionism is the practice of standing for election to a legislative body while refusing to take office in the event one wins the election, generally done to protest the perceived illegitimacy of the body. Also some candidates have won election while imprisoned and thus unable to take their seats, a notable example being Bobby Sands. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just that he was imprisoned. Members of Sinn Fein elected to the UK parliament,starting with Constance Markiewicz, have always refused to take the oath of office, and thus been unable to take their seats. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has occurred in the parliaments of Ghana (link) and Kenya (link). Many peers in the British House of Lords also do not contribute to debate (see here). Neutralitytalk 20:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Isaac Newton: "Newton was also a member of the Parliament of England for Cambridge University in 1689–90 and 1701–2, but according to some accounts his only comments were to complain about a cold draught in the chamber and request that the window be closed". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Geraint Morgan, who was my MP between 1959 (when I was a baby) and 1983, was noted for very rarely making a speech in the House of Commons throughout the 24 years he was a member. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I was beginning to think this was a peculiarly British affliction, however in Ghana we have 19 MPs never spoke in Parliament for 4 years and in Kenya, 27 MPs have never spoken in parliament (although the that was only during 2015). Alansplodge (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For the UK, there is a useful spreadsheet listing maiden speeches of MPs (linked from ). Aside from the abstentionist candidates, the last MPs recorded as never having spoken in the Commons are John Wheatley, Baron Wheatley (who nevertheless held important positions), and William Thomas Adams.  There were several more in the 1920s. Warofdreams talk 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How was Ancient Rome able to sustain a population of one million
If the ancient Romans were a preindustrial society, then how did Ancient Rome sustain a population of one million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You could start with the articles Roman economy and Roman commerce. Ancient Rome had an extremely sophisticated communications and trade system that managed to bring goods from all over its vast empire and beyond to its citizens. --Xuxl (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Specifically, Rome's food largely came from farms in North Africa. The Italian peninsula could not feed itself, and food shortages became a recurring issue in the late Empire, as trade was continually disrupted by rebellion and invasion. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think "preindustrial" is the right term, since "industry" is a very broad term. I assume you mean pre-Industrial Revolution? Your implication seems to be that a pre-modern city couldn't support such a population, but Rome was not the only pre-modern city to have a population in the millions. Agriculture is what allows large human settlements to exist; the Industrial Revolution just made agriculture more efficient. Anyone got sources on estimates of the hypothetical maximum population for pre-industrial cities? --47.138.163.230 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One limiting factor would be from how far away food could be shipped. Shipping vast quantities of food long distances over land was impractical, so that meant you needed to be near a major body of water.  Since ships of that era weren't reliable for ocean voyages (they might get lucky on occasion, but you can't rely on that), that means you needed a large, protected body of water, where shipwrecks would occur less often, to connect to vast farmlands.  The Mediterranean Sea and connected bodies of water was a good choice.


 * Another might have been some of the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Erie are all connected without waterfalls, while connecting to Lake Superior and Lake Ontario would require a portage, canal, etc.).  A major city could have been built there in ancient times, if they had the technology of Rome, although icing over in winter might require storing food up for the winter months.  Specifically, the Buffalo Niagara Region would be good, as it could receive food shipments from all the Great Lakes except Lake Superior, and the elevation difference from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario would provide a good water flow for their aqueducts and perhaps water mills, with sewage draining into Lake Ontario. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Uncle_dan_is_home -- The basic literal answer to your question is grain imports from Egypt and from what was then called "Africa" (i.e. today's northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria), the main grain exporting regions of the Roman empire. Harbors such as Ostia were the site of civil engineering works to be able to receive and unload grain ships in different weathers. When such imports were permanently cut off, the city of Rome underwent a significant decline... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind that Rome had what was almost certainly the most sophisticated water system and sewer system in the ancient world - plus an advanced road network centred on the city. The Romans may not have been industrial, but they were good engineers and they had enough slave labour to build very advanced networks for supplying food and water while removing waste. Smurrayinchester 13:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Rome had also developed some very important technology we take for granted today: concrete and high-quality roads, which still stand millennia after they were built. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Smurrayinchester, Matt_Deres -- It was not really cost-effective to ship large amounts of bulk commodities long distances by road in Roman times (as StuRat mentioned). Roman roads had important military and political implications, but I think they would have had a somewhat secondary role in feeding the city population of Rome. AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed for the bulk of foods, but some perishable foods, like fruit, could be delivered by land. (For meat, delivering it as live animals would prevent spoilage, so that could be shipped by sea.) StuRat (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While it is well known that the Romans had long-distance trade in bulk foodstuffs, particularly grains, oils and wine, the role of the immediate hinterland of the city in feeding the inhabitants shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The Campagna is and was a wide grain-growing plain to the south of the city. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt it played a role, but all indications are that the peak ancient population of Rome could not have been sustained without regular grain imports. AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Specifically, contemporary sources put the imported grain as constituting 90% of Rome's food supply (see Cura Annonae). Some of this is due to the sheer population in Italy, and some may have been due to choice. Much of the arable land around the city of Rome was taken up by luxurious villas rather than farms, and many of the farms produced wine instead of food, or perishable foodstuffs instead of more efficient grain. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Raw sewage produced by ancient Rome
I imagine that the untreated sewage did heavily pollute the seas and beaches where it dumped out. Do we have accounts of this problem ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sanitation in ancient Rome may have some of what you are looking for . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've read through it and it doesn't seem to mention the environmental consequences of the release of that much raw sewage into the sea. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't found any sources discussing the environmental impact of ancient roman sewage, but did come across some interesting reading. This is a particularly nauseating reconstruction of the consequences of Roman sewer systems. Research on Roman sewage seems to focus only on the impact it had on people, not the environment. Gastroenteritis was a common cause of death in ancient Rome, which could have been a consequence of insufficient clearing of the sewer system, and contamination of food and drinking water by raw sewage. Now, the closest I could get to impacts on the environment was this paper, which only mentions the sewers in passing, but it is clear that the rivers the sewers drained into were quite full of life. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Anyone else find anything on this ? StuRat (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * in this article, it mentions that "Historical records show that farmers used human feces collected from towns to fertilize their crops." And this article seems to have a great deal of information on the topic. Hope this helps! Eddie891 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (I fixed your links.) Using them for fertilizer sounds like a better alternative to polluting the water directly, although I'm sure there would still be some water pollution from runoff, and the farmers would be exposed to many diseases. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Divine Comedy, Purgatorio section of WP article
the last paragraph of that subsection asserts that the work is evidence of medieval knowledge of a spherical earth since Dante referred to different star positions and timezones in the DC. This doesnt appear to have a source, and i don't know if this is supposed to be a common-knowledge thing or not because i'm honestly not familiar with the subject matter. I guess the way the article refers to it seems improper because it's saying "it's a thing because xyz in the poem" instead of saying "scholar A says its a thing because xyz". Synthesis, original research? I don't know what it is, it doesnt look right.

Anyway-- is it actually acknowledged that Dante knew about these things (timezones, round-earth-ness) by virtue of what he writes in this work? If so, the article would probably do well with those sources, and I'm just generally interested in knowing. 206.47.249.253 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the educated class was aware that the Earth was round, but that peasants may not have been. Also, it's rather obvious for sailors or anyone living on the sea, as you see all but the mast disappear as a ship sails away. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stu, is of course, far to busy to provide any references for you to read, so let me take some pressure of his busy life and do so for you. Wikipedia has an article titled Spherical Earth which you can read at your own leisure and through which you can draw your on conclusions about your question.  -- Jayron 32 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you are too busy to proofread what you wrote, but not too busy to provide a ref that doesn't answer the Q. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And worst of all, he did it right here on the proof-reading desk, where we literally expect people to proof-read things that other folks need to be proof-read. Matt Deres (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * that article only mentions Dante once, in a single sentence, and is similarly unsourced, so uh... it doesnt really confirm whether a scholarly source has interpreted these elements in his works as confirmation that he knew the earth was round or if that's synthesis being employed in the articles in question. again, i'm not an expert in the matter but i'm beginning to feel like im asking a does-a-bear-shit-in-the-woods kind of question. 206.47.249.247 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron 32 02:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron 32 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see Jayron has resorted to quantity of refs over quality, unless somewhere buried in all those refs is an actual answer. If so, it sure would be nice to know which ref and what location within that ref, rather than just list every Google match he could find and expect you to read them all in the hope that one of them might contain an answer. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe the OP will click on the first one and be satisfied with it since it provides a source for the assertion they were looking for. Matt Deres (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Our job is not to give answers. Our job is to provide references for research so people can find their own answers.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not according to Reference desk, which would seem to be the definitive reference on this point. "Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it."  Actually, I don't see any mention on that page to the effect that we're also supposed to try to provide references.  Is that stated somewhere else, did I miss it, or is it just considered to be a consequence of good Wikipedia practice?  (And I must say I find it at least slightly annoying when people just post a URL or a wikilink without summarizing what's to be found there.) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're not willing to read a reference, how will you learn anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One ref, sure, but Jayron gave 21, with no indication of which might contain the answer. That's asking a lot of the OP, to read through all that.  Our goal should be giving quality answers, not quantity. StuRat (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They're all interesting, but after reading a few, the OP would get the drift that Dante most likely knew the earth was spherical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence immediately preceding the one quoted by StuRat, which begins the relevant paragraph, reads:
 * "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk."
 * In my not inconsiderable experience of using general and specialist reference libraries in both a private and a professional capacity, a Librarian, when asked a question, does not merely give the answer (assuming they happen to know it – or think they do). They show the questioner where the answer may be found in relevant library holdings of reliable source materials.
 * The reasons for this are (at least) threefold:
 * firstly, so that the questioner knows where to recheck for the same or related information in the future;
 * secondly, so that the questioner will be exposed to other related information which they may not have known to ask about, but which may also be of interest (which is nearly always the case);
 * thirdly, so that the questioner can see that the information really does come from a reliable source, and has not been mis-remembered or wrongly guessed at, however intelligently, by the Librarian.
 * I suggest that if we are attempting to emulate the staff of a Reference Library, we should do the same. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.118.169 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HEAR! HEAR! --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to re-affirm and clarify what others have said above, there's no requirement to read all references. If the OP is extremely interested in the subject, perhaps they will. That's up to them. If the OP is satisfied with a simple answer, perhaps they'll just read 2 or 3. If all the refs provide the same answer to the basic question, then there is no need to filter them for the OP or provide commentary. It was said "no indication of which might contain the answer", but no evidence has been provided that they don't all provide the answer. While 21 may be a bit extreme, ultimately there should be little difference in the simple case whether 4 (for example) are provided or 21 including the first 4. If someone is unable to deal with the fact that more refs are provided then they are interested in, then it's probably helpful for them to learn to deal with that as this is something that will come up in a lot of research, not just on the RD. And anyone actually used to providing refs would probably no while reading and manual filtering is generally required, as much as anything if it's something you're not that familiar with, filtering is actually also based on the top search results for whatever Google (or Bing if you really use that) search you use.  Note also a bunch of the refs are Google Books, and journal articles. The availability of the former can depend on various things like where you IP geolocates to. The later may be behind a paywall. So more refs reduces the risks none will be available. Yet because it's not generally easy to predict what will be available, and also because more scholarly refs may be of more interest to someone interested in serious research, it's not actually always simple to work out which refs to provide.  In other words, saying there are too many refs only really works if either some of them don't provide an answer or if they are duplicates.  Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Posting 21 refs with no indication of what is in each and which might actually answer the Q is about the same as when people post a Q linking to an hour-long video and only ask "what's going on here ?" with no time index or clarification as to what part they are asking about. We might as well tell them to "Google it" for every Q and stop providing refs at all. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat, there is no need to indicate which one answers the question if all, or nearly all of them do. You've provided zero evidence that nearly all of the references don't answer the question. Until and unless you do, you have no relevant point since as I already mentioned, if all references answer the question, the OP is free to only read two or three if they desire. It may be useful to mention what is in each, but again, if the OP is truly interested in the subject, most likely they will simply check them out since ultimately it can often be difficult to summarise what the reference talks about especially when you have little idea what aspects the OP is interested in other than their specific question (which let me repeat, you've provided zero evidence isn't answer by most or all of the references). Telling people to "Google" stuff is sometimes useful, but history has shown plenty of people seem to have major problems with even the most basic search term and you must know there is wide debate about whether we should just give such answers. Let me repeat for the final time (I think I only said it twice last time and you didn't seem to understand), regardless of that anyway, it's still useful to the OP if you've tried to ensure you only provided references which actually answer the question from the search result. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay so I actually looked, and here are my results. First ref appears to answer the question. Second ref  partially answers the question (it's talking about the spherical earth and how it was widely accepted at the time including by Dante but doesn't specifically mention it was described in his writings in the parts I could see, note it's a book about "Dante in context"). Third ref  no idea if it answers the question since I can't see enough. Fourth ref  appears to answers the question. Fifth ref  fairly weird ref but appears to answer the question (it makes the claim referencing another source that Dante was referring to a 3-sphere, which of course means a sphere in 3D space). Sixth ref  appears to answer the question. Seventh ref  appears to answer the question. Eight ref  appears to answer the question. Ninth ref  doesn't seem to answer the question at all (does mention another ref which may or may not answer the question).  I admit, 6 or 7 out of 9 isn't quite as high success rate as I would like, but it isn't that bad. In addition, I can't be sure Jayron32 doesn't have some reason to think 2 and 3 do answer the question properly, perhaps e.g. because they could or have seen more than me of these refs. I should also clarify my only consideration was whether the ref stated or implied Dante's writings described or made clear he was aware the earth was spherical. I didn't consider the timezones part because this wasn't repeated in the followup, so I'm not certain Jayron32 was considering this aspect, or how much it actually matters to the OP if the refs say Dante writings describe a spherical earth including timezones.  Perhaps most importantly, my main point would stand even if none of the references answered the question. You need to establish there is actual a problem with the references before you complain there are too many. If they all answer the question, then there is no good reason to complain about too many references except in some very specific circumstances. E.g. if someone specifically said they did not wanted more then 3 refs and you provided 30. Or if there were multiple questions and some of them answered one, some of them the other and perhaps even some of them both, and you gave no indication which one for which. Maybe even if there were multiple questions and they all only answered one question and you gave no indication of that although this is complicated. If I miss part of the question and provide 4 refs to the part I didn't miss that's generally a minor error. Providing 21 is perhaps slightly worse, but if there are 2 question and you've checked out four and the all only answered one of the questions, it'll be wise to simply ask if any of the refs answer the other question anyway. Note perhaps if you provided 30 and half your stuff is ehow, Yahoo Answers and stuff like that along with a bunch of just as accessible and understandable refs, people may question the need for ehow, Yahoo Answers etc. But this is only partially related to the number. (Partially because in a case where there was only 4 refs, even if 2 of them were eHow etc and the other 2 were quality, accessible, readable, I'd be reluctant to say criticisng the decision to provide Yahoo etc is necessary.)  Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Some points:


 * What extra value do the poor quality refs add ? Why not just add the refs that answer the Q, and skip the rest ?  This what I meant by putting quantity over quality.


 * I suspect that Jayron didn't read all his refs either, or he would have known which answered the Q and which didn't.


 * This quantity of refs makes it impractical for us each to review each other's refs, which means we can't point out any potential probs with refs. Even when you attempted to go through them, you could only make it through 9, before giving up.


 * Some text is almost always helpful for describing a ref, like "Only the abstract is available here, but if you can access the entire article, it seems to cover the topic well" or "This source seems iffy, but I'd follow the refs it uses".


 * We could always provide a link to Google search results, for those who can't do a basic Google search. The point in us listing specific refs, with a description of what's in each, is that we are filtering out the useless refs.  If we are unwilling to do that, then the Google search results are just as good.  StuRat (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there are probably references enough to settle his question, but I would also point out that he can consult the Purgatorio itself. Even if not immediately apparent to the modern reader, most translations are published with glosses that point out the cosmology in exquisite detail. For example, in the very first canto Dante locates Eden/Purgatory at the antipodes of Jerusalem, and of course having an antipodes implies a sphere. And it is here that he alludes to four stars never before seen except by Adam and Eve (because everyone who has lived since lived on the opposite hemisphere). By close analysis of lines 1-6 it can be concluded that it is dawn in Jerusalem, and at the antipodes (the location of Purgatory) the sun is setting. Libra, opposite Aries, is above the Ebro, in Spain, where it is midnight, and it is noon on the Ganges.  In other words, the two equinoxes and the two solstices are aligned with four geographic points and four times (Ganges/Aries/noon, Ebro/Libra/midnight, Purgatory/Cancer/sunset, and Jerusalem/Capricorn/dawn).


 * It deals with the Inferno rather than the Purgatorio, but this previous RD thread may be of interest. Deor (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

OP here (just noticed my IP address seems to change, so thought id clarify). Don't have the ability to look at the refs j sent right now, this computer seems to run these links about as well as a dumpster fire would, so i'll give them a read later when i have more access. answer kind of read as snarky but whatever, tone is hard to gauge online, thanks anyway. getting the impression it's probably a fact as given, it just came off weird to me in the wp article bc i literally know almost nothing about the work or the timeperiod it was written in. 206.47.249.246 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, it seems from Jayron's references that Dante knew of the spherical earth, or at least, we have good reason to believe he did. I am sorry that you blundered in to this mess. The problem is not you. What is going on is a long-standing discontent between some of our members, and you, through no fault of your own, happened to trigger some squabbling between some of us. Some of us seek to model a library reference desk, and provide sources that can help answer questions, and others like to type whatever they happen to think is true. All of us are trying to help, but we do so in very different ways. Rest assured, I am confident Jayron meant no snark for you. Please feel free to come back with more questions in the future! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)