Humanities desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13[edit]

Longest direct flights[edit]

Is there a list of the longest direct flights here or elsewhere? Hack (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list here purports to list the 20 longest. The longest ever regularly scheduled commercial nonstop flight was, as far as I can tell, is the now discontinued Singapore Airlines Flight 21 and its sister flight Singapore Airlines 22, at 9,534 miles (15,343 km). The current longest is an Emirates flight from Dubai to Panama City which is 13,838 kilometers, 17 kilometers longer than the Quantas flight from Sydney to Dallas which it is surpassing, according to this article. --Jayron 32 03:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was hoping for some idea of the longest flight combinations with the same flight number. Hack (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] has some possible candidates, at least at the time. It includes NZ1 from Auckland to London which is still operating (although it goes via Los Angeles rather than HK now). It includes time rather than distances (mostly) however you can check the distances yourself [2] [3]. The two I checked are closed enough that you will need to check the actual airports. Also, are you thinking of the (shortest) great circle distance between the two destinations or the great circle distance between any stops, or the actual varying route that's travelled? The later may be somewhat hard to find since it doesn't seem that many are interested in distance records for direct flights with stops, so it's possible no one has collected the data (the airlines obviously have it, but I'm not sure they always publish it for each flight so you may have to ask them), although it's also possible someone did somewhere and I suspect there's a few databased that probably have the info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these official distances always take into account the Great-circle distance, individual flight distances will vary, of course, depending on the parameters of the specific flight (altitude traveled, detouring around storms, specific flight paths to prepare to land at an airport, etc.). --Jayron 32 14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they would but what official distances? I don't think we have official distances for NZ1 (and its counterpart) or the Korean Air 062. There is a distance for NZ1 listed on the StackExchange discussion, but I don't know we that came from.

We have official distances for the Singapore Airlines 21 & 22, in fact our article goes in to a small amount of detail on that. And also for the other non stope flights, but it doesn't seem to be what the OP is interested in, the distance comparison with NZ1 or KE62 suggests even the longest nonstop i.e SQ 22 was still way too short.

If we could find official distances for the possible candidates for longest direct flight that would be great. But the problem I see is that since it's not clear anyone has properly came up with a list of these flights (unlike with nonstop flights) it's possible no one has done the ground work. And the nature of stop over times and speed variances means we probably have to find distances for every possible candidate (including I would suggest short ones like 22h). Finding the great circle distance for the cities, or even all stopover cities is relatively easy. (The specific airports is a bit trickier although not extremely so since I'm pretty sure it'll be trivial to find the GPS coordinates for any airport.) Official distances may be trickier, as I'm not sure if all airlines publish them for all their flights, or where they will publish them. A quick search of airnewzealand.co.nz didn't find any for NZ1. Some airlines may put them in their air magazines or on the flight occassionally, and as I said, I suspect the airlines would provide them on request but that's a lot more work.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about databased like Flightaware and Flightradar24 when I mentioned databased earlier. A search seems to confirm Flightware at least [4] [5] has distance info although Planefinder [6] and Flightradar24 [7] don't.

Flightware would probably provide a simple way to get something close to official distances for the various candidates (using planned distances).

I was (why I mentioned databases) and am thinking their database is probably sophisticated enough that you can easily actually look for the longest distance if you had proper access, but I'm sure it's the kind of thing they'd want payment for, unless you can convince them to do it themselves to publish as a point of interest. So probably the best option remains looking for possible candidates and just checking each one, and hope there are none missing, which unfortunately there probably are.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article with a list of some pretty long combinations. Not sure if it is exhaustive. Hack (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list may be useful, although since it's concentrating on the "fifth freedom" leg, it includes stuff which are fairly short (in relative terms). For example, the top on in the list would likely be shorter than even SQ 22, and possibly even the current nonstop Emirates record holder (but not so sure about that); let alone flights like NZ1 or KE62 (which to be fair, are also on the list). It also only includes the distance for the fifth freedom leg, so while it's a useful list of candidates, you'd still need to check each candidate to find the distance. By the same token, even assuming the list was exhaustive for its purpose at the time, even at the time it may not have been exhaustive for the longest direct flights, if the fifth freedom leg/s was shorter than 7503km which may only require the earlier leg it something over 11000km or alternatively multiple fifth freedom legs or a few probably not very likely possibilities why it didn't have a long fifth freedom leg. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest building in NYC = 1805?[edit]

From Battery Park:

On December 8, 2005, New York City authorities announced that builders working on the new South Ferry subway station in Battery Park had found the remains of a 200-year-old stone wall. After archaeological analysis, it was widely reported to be the oldest man-made structure still in place in Manhattan.

So the oldest building in Manhattan postdates 1805? Apparently not, and that's just one link that I checked at random. Is this just a typo somehow, or is it an outright error, and if the latter, what's the actual situation? The source for the first sentence is accurately reflected in the quote, but the second sentence isn't sourced at all. Nyttend (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200 is a rather round number so it seems easily possible or even rather likely it wasn't intended to be an exact figure for the age. Also the paragraph implies the exact age wasn't known (if it even is now) until after the source/discovery. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article later says the discovery was likely intended to protect stuff in the 17th and 18th century ("said that the wall was probably built to protect the 17th- and 18th-century artillery batteries from which the park's name is derived"). No mention of the 19th, which implies it was 1800 (depending on definitions) or earlier. The source used doesn't from what I can tell call it the oldest but does imply it was from before 1790 [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This from before any proper analysis but which probably reflects the kind of thinking from around the time of the discovery (and so report of 200 year old) says it could be the oldest fortification (not structure) but doesn't say it's certain and gives and age of 1760 or older [9]. In other words, I don't think anyone ever really thought it was exactly 200 years old. [10] which I'm not sure after how much analysis suggests by the 1740s. [11] again I'm not sure after how much analysis suggests after 1730 but before 1766. Given the condition of the wall, I have to wonder of there were any similar conditions structures from pre Columbian times, but don't know enough about Manhattan archaeology to have any confidence in that. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of the oldest buildings in New York which might show the wall is older than any Manhattan but not NYC building. Rmhermen (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That list includes buildings from areas of New York state outside of New York City, but it is true that the oldest buildings within the present city limits are outside of Manhattan. According to the list, the oldest building in Manhattan is Fraunces Tavern, dating to 1719. Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd've thought there might be an asterisk for the Gowanus House in Brooklyn. Now that I've looked at that article, I think it has some incorrect information, which I'll look into fixing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would motivate men in patriarchal societies to raise daughters differently?[edit]

By that, I mean giving daughters an education (or the same education as her brothers) or not neglecting/killing female infants and fetuses. I notice that this kind of thing has been done several times in history and in the present day. 140.254.70.167 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It often comes down to the dowry/bride price. If the male's family gives the female's family goods or money, then the female is an asset. If it's the other way around, then the female is a financial liability. The government could conceivably reverse this financial transaction by paying the family of the bride more.

Buying female infants would be another way to make them valuable, but then whoever buys them has to raise them properly, which is an expensive proposition. As for having the original parents keep their daughters and yet educate them, some type of bribe is probably needed there. Maybe the family could receive a payment when the daughter passes a test or exam.

Of course, the problem with all this is it requires lots of money, and the nations where this happens tend to be dirt poor. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) Status. You raise boys and girls to give them the best chance to achieve status, for themselves and for the family, in the ways that are available to them. Education is expensive, so in societies where it's not paid for by the state, it's treated as an investment, and you only invest in something that's likely to provide a return. If occupations that require an education are closed to women, then it's a waste of money to educate your daughters - they, and you, will see no benefit from it. In such a society, your daughter's best chance of achieving status is through a marriage to a man of status, so you bring her up to be marriageable. She will be taught how to manage a household, to care for children, to cook, weave and sew, so she can contribute to he well-being of her new family in the ways that are available to her, and to take care of her appearance, to have good manners, and to value chastity, because a man of status will be choosy, will want a wife he's attracted to and enjoys spending time with, and won't want to risk bringing up children that might not be his. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have very long and well-referenced articles at sexism, gender role, Sex_differences_in_humans, infanticide, and see also e.g. Missing_women_of_Asia. (I would advice the OP to ignore the "anwers" above :)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to advise them how to spell the word "answers" and distinguish between the words advice and advise. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thomas á Jesu[edit]

We have only a one-sentence stub on Thomas á Jesu (I found it through Special:Random), which derives from a much longer article in the PD-US Catholic Encyclopedia. That article says "His biographers relate numberless miracles alleged to have been wrought by him during life (for which he was called the Thaumaturgis of his time), and after his death, but until the conclusion of the process of beatification it is impossible to speak of these." Since the encyclopedia is more than a century old, I assume that the beatification process is now complete. Did it conclude with him being beatified, or did it conclude with a decision not to beatify him? There's nothing remotely relevant on Google; virtually everything is mirrors of the Catholic Encyclopedia or of Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not helped by the presence of Father Thomas of Jesus O.A.D. (1529-1582, Lisbon), and Tomás Sánchez de Ávila S.J. (1550-1610, Cordoba), also referred to as "Thomas of Jesus" in some sources. Sorry not to be more helpful, but any more skilled searchers will need to eliminate these two other monks. Tevildo (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, what's meant by "the Thaumaturgis of his time"? Obviously he wasn't a South African moth. I'm guessing that it either means that he was the premier thaumaturgist (a typo) or a 16th-century edition of Gregory Thaumaturgus. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps point out that the material quoted by Nyttend in the original post is said, not of Thomas, but of Venerable Dominic á Jesu Maria, who's (somewhat confusingly) the subject of the last paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Thomas. Deor (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so much for my question...thanks for pointing that out, because I totally missed that fact! Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik à Jesu Maria has a beautiful article (with pictures) over on :cs, which might benefit from translation. It might just be a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, of course. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thaumaturgis: A title meaning “miracle-worker” given to saints who performed miracles." from Holy Bingo, the Lingo of Eden, Jumpin' Jehosophat and the Land of Nod by Les Harding (p. 201). Alansplodge (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]