Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 25

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.

November 25

Countries With (Attempted) Large-Scale Territorial Expansion/Enlargement Since 1800

Which countries successfully expanded or unsuccessfully tried to expand their borders since 1800? For this question, I am asking about countries where the bulk of the territorial expansion or attempted territorial expansion occurred since 1800, rather than about countries which did most of their expansion before 1800 (such as Vietnam (see here: Nam tiến) and (the) Russia(n Empire)) and then "finished up" their expansion since 1800. Also, I am not talking about territorial expansion which was done as a part of the process of national (re-)unification, such as for Germany and Italy in the 1800s (see here: German unification and here: Italian unification) or in 1990 (see here: German reunification). So far, the only examples which I can think of in regards to this are the United States of America (see here: Manifest destiny) and, from a more extreme perspective, Germany (during World War I and especially during the Nazi Germany; see here: Lebensraum). Which other countries am I missing here? Also, countries such as Canada do not count, since they expanded their borders due to the fact that they (a British colony in the past) absorbed other areas which were also British colonies in the past (hopefully this part here makes sense). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The First French Empire, Japan, and Italy (to an extent) should meet your conditions. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the First French Empire should count, since it expanded its territories (including its puppet states, which it perhaps might have wanted to eventually outright annex like it actually did with the Netherlands, northern Italy, and northeastern Germany) by a decent/large amount after 1799. As for Italy, I suppose that it could count to an extent, since AFAIK Mussolini had expansionist goals in the non-Italian countries/areas of Albania, Greece, southwestern France, et cetera (I don't really count the Italian territorial acquisitions right/shortly after WWI for the purposes of my question here, since Italy's post-WWI territorial acquisitions were at least generally Italian-majority, and thus, their acquisition by Italy can arguably be considered as a continuation of the process of Italian unification). And Yes, I suppose that Japan can count for my question here as well, at least to some degree. Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada should count as British Columbia did not become a British colony until 1858. Rmhermen (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't British Columbia under de facto and/or de jure British control before 1858 as well, though? I know that Oregon County was partitioned in the mid-1840s, with the United States getting the southern part and with the United Kingdom getting the northern part. Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Country was disputed between Britain, Russia and U.S. after 1800. Rmhermen (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Russia appears to have given up its claim to Oregon Country in the 1820s. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How about the Zulu Kingdom? Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will need to look it up more, since I currently unfortunately don't know very much about it. Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Territorial claims in Antarctica may be relevant. It's probably the last colonial land grab. Hack (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; I wonder if there will ever be a serious discussion in any country in regards to annexing a part of Antarctica. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There was serious discussion of annexing parts of Antarctica until the late 1950s. Maps from the era show the last continent divided and colored like colonial Africa; Argentinian and Chilean postage stamps showed the national borders including their claims to a slice of Antactica (see here e.g. [1]). The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 has put an end to that: while the various claiming countries have not formally renounced their territorial claims, they have all agreed to stop pursuing them any further and to let the continent be a common heritage of humankind. --Xuxl (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguably a number of Balkan countries tried, some succeeding, some not so much. Bulgaria has tried to create a Greater Bulgaria, but failed (see Second Balkan War). Romania gained independence in the 19th century in a form much smaller than what it is today (notably it didn't include Transylvania). Romania#Independence and monarchy has an animated map showing its expansion. Pfly (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. Also, couldn't the rump Yugoslavia (Serbia plus Montenegro) in the 1990s (arguably) count for this? Futurist110 (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No one has mentioned it and it's a little late, but Iraq's invasion and annexation of Koweit in the summer of 1990, which led to the First Gulf War, definitely fits. --Xuxl (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the Iraq being one of the answers to this question, especially considering that Saddam invaded Iran as well before he invaded Kuwait. Futurist110 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sharecropping

Would it be accurate to say that sharecropping is a form of feudalism? →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The trend among scholars of European history for several decades has been to define the word "feudalism" more and more narrowly, so that true feudalism would be confined to a relatively small slice of European history only. According to such definitions, the answer would definitely be "no". The broader or looser traditional definition of feudalism is that in the great majority of people's lives, the power of their local overlord is far more significant than any theoretical central state or remote monarchy. Not sure sharecropping would qualify under that definition either (though it definitely sometimes included oppressive employment practices, or de facto debt servitude)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly not feudalism in any strict sense. Subinfeudation by commoners has been illegal since the statute of Quia Emptores in 1290, and the sharecropper's right to land is not a fief. Indeed, the sharecropper's limited right to land and inability to leave it to his heirs is central to sharecropping and an essential element of the landlord's power. In contrast, feudalism was an hereditary system. John M Baker (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually more like manorialism than the usual understanding of feudalism, in the sense that sharecroppers, like medieval peasants, had to work the land for the local landowner, whoever it was, and were unable to leave and had very few rights. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on the details of the sharecropping arrangement. In the United States, cotton sharecropping often involved what had once been large plantations. Thus, the landlord tended to have many tenants, in an arrangement that could almost be seen as manorial. Other crops, however, tended to have smaller landlords for whom any comparison to manorialism would be ridiculous. A sharecropped farm might, for example, belong to the widow of the original farmer, now relying on the tenant for her own support.

While American sharecroppers tended to be poor, they had the option of leaving the farm, and once industrialization created sufficient jobs many of them did so. Sharecroppers could also buy the farm they worked, and this occurred sometimes, though probably not so much in the cotton plantation context. John M Baker (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Baker has captured the key difference between sharecropping and feudal relations. Sharecroppers were legally free agents in contractual agreements with landlords. They were free not to agree to a contract or to move on when the contract's term was finished. Feudal serfs were typically not free but were legally bound to continue working the estate where they were born. Serfs were more like slaves, with the key difference that feudal landlords could not buy or sell individual serf. (Typically, feudal landlords couldn't even buy or sell estates but held them as fiefs granted by their overlords. Feudal landlords typically only had the right to bequeath their fiefs to their heirs, and really only at the pleasure of their overlords, who could reclaim enfeoffed lands when their vassals died or if they were "disloyal.") But unlike sharecroppers, serfs couldn't legally seek a better deal on a different estate or as a wage laborer in a town. The only legal ways out of serfdom (before it started to give way to relationships more like tenancy beginning in the late Middle Ages) were to perform some extraordinary service to one's lord and to be granted freedom in return or, in some times and places, to purchase one's freedom. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

These answers are thought-provoking. Thank you all. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

From the Marxist technical use of Feudalism (inherited from a pretty poor choice of technical terms in the 19th century), Sharecropping would not be feudalism to the extent that the landlord take the shared crop for sale on a capitalist market, rather than for personal enjoyment. The sharecrop for the landlord is potential value, it is capitalist in nature. For the Manorial lord, taxes as harvest or in kind are directly consumed, or sold out through non-capitalist means in order to procure limited luxury goods. The difference lies in the market economy, production for sale on a market, and the ownership of land as "a thing that can grow crops" or "a thing that provides market rents." Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But if not sharecropping, did the CSA not go through a feudalist stage, as it should have, after slavery was abolished? →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read Marx and Engels on this subject directly, I strongly suggest the Penguin collection of Marx's Journalism. They did not consider "The South" to be a slave society ala or Athens, Rome. Unfree labour existed in the context of a mercantile and developing industrial Capitalist economy for Freddie and Kazza. My go to here would be CLR James' The Black Jacobins, however, James has been criticised for being part of that whole Autonomist thing that puts the class before the party. Also Marx is pretty direct in advocating pushing as hard as possibly can be pushed in India, China and Russia for human freedom in his journalism and advocacy—certainly he wasn't a schematist about what was to be done. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidents/statesmen featured on US dollar bills

I think there is enough general background buzz surrounding the achievements of Washington, Lincoln and Franklin for Americans to really appreciate why they are featured on the $1, $5 and $100 bills, respectively. Jefferson ($2) and Hamilton ($10) require a bit more investigation, as unless one is somewhat steeped in American history, their contributions can be more easily overlooked. But what exactly is the spotlight on Jackson ($20) and Grant ($50) all about? I mean, sure, if one reads their Wikipedia articles, there's lots of great stuff, but if you'd give me the Wikipedia articles for all US presidents and early statesmen/legislators and asked me to speculate which ones had ben granted immortalization by having their pictures affixed to our currency, and then I read all the articles and attempted to rate the relative contributions of each, would I have chosen Jackson and Grant? Or Cleveland ($20) prior to 1928? I can't say that I would have. Am I just woefully unaware of these presidents' contribution to US history, or would the vast majority of non-historians also find it difficult to provide insight into why Jackson and Grant were honored over other presidents? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackson was generally considered the greatest President between the founding fathers and Lincoln, and was a war hero to boot (the Battle of New Orleans). Grant was the general who finally won the Civil War, after a whole string of commanders-in-chief of the Union forces proved to be unequal to the task; his two terms as President were less successful, but he was the first President to complete two full consecutive terms since Jackson (and the only one until Woodrow Wilson). They may be slightly forgotten now, but they were extremely famous men until the middle of the 20th century. Cleveland was also elected twice and he and Teddy Roosevelt were the most successful presidents during an otherwise uninspiring period running roughly from President Hayes to Franklin Roosevelt. --Xuxl (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting Jackson on paper money is a bit ironic though -- see Bank War. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackson's reputation these days is a bit tarnished, especially on the left, since he was a slaveholder (though so were many of the Founders) and arguably genocidal toward Native Americans. However, he still has quite a following among conservative Southern whites and removing him from the $20 bill would be politically fraught. The $50 bill is not in wide circulation, and I doubt that most Americans would know, offhand, that it features Grant. The $20 and lower-denomination bills have much greater visibility. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The real fishy one is Salmon P. Chase on the $10,000 bill. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That was to honor Chase for introducing the modern banknote system, and the $10,000 bill was never publicly circulated anyway. I find that much easier to understand than Cleveland on the $20 bill from 1914 to 1928. John M Baker (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that Jefferson would be in a "need more investigation" category. Jefferson is a bigger figure than Franklin, surely? The Declaration of Independence, and all. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For a non-historian American, I'd say you need to be in a history class to be able to know/recall that. The analogy "Jefferson was to Declaration of Independence as..." is only meaningful insofar as most people would assume that the analogy is, a priori, something that makes sense, rather than a joke. I only know that Jefferson had anything to do with the DoI because it's in the Animaniacs Presidents Song. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bigger than Big Ben? I'm not so sure of that. Franklin was world famous, a rock star before there were rock stars. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It truly is a disgrace - see Seminole Wars. We're talking about a sum of money much greater than that used to buy Alaska, spent to systematically drive out or exterminate the Spanish, Indians, and escaped slaves from "Florida" (the southern margin of the U.S. all the way to Louisiana) and southern Georgia and Alabama also. And Jackson was absolutely central to the war to make America safe for slavery. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale

Can anybody tell me something about the fertility options that were available prior to the publication of the The Handmaid's Tale? There are some things that don't make sense to me, like the fact that the couples use handmaids instead of adopting children from foreign or third-world countries or the fact that couples somehow don't have access to in vitro fertilization or the effects of going through a major genetic bottleneck. From a biological perspective, the handmaid's genes would likely contribute to the gene pool of the next generation, but since the handmaids give their offspring to the other parent and adoptive parent before moving on to the next household, it is assumed that the next generation will have a lot of half-siblings due to the handmaid's traveling. Half-siblings still wouldn't be good, because they can't reproduce with each other and doing so might result in inbreeding-induced abnormalities. 140.254.227.68 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read The Handmaid's Tale myself, but I note that it is a work of fiction set in the near future. As such, I wouldn't get too hung up on whether or not the fertility options carried out by the characters in the novel make sense as logical choices today. The author may not have thought it was important to create believable future scenarios, preferring to take liberties for the sake of literary or dramatic effect. --Viennese Waltz 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In vitro fertilization was a new thing when the novel was published; the world's first "test tube baby" was born in 1978, and the process took another five years or so to become widely available, which takes us to about the time Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale (which was published in 1985). In any case, Atwood was interested in a different scenario as a remedy for fertility problems, in what was a work of fiction anyway. --Xuxl (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A close reading of the text itself should suffice to answer your question. Pay particular attention to the Handmaid's memory of her youth in the prior society. Regarding half-siblings, read the earlier books of the Old Testament, these are Atwood's context for the theocratic state controlling significant portions of North America (chiefly, maternal line incest isn't a big thing in such a patriarchal society). Regarding "foreign-ness," the theocratic fascist state has a strong conception of "in" and "out" groups. Pay close attention when reading sections on un-women. Sourcing breeding stock from outside of the theocracy would be culturally distasteful. Also, it would be unnecessary, reread the sections on "econowives" as multiple purpose domestic, breeding and companionship women. Finally, the text contains major hints on how to read it ("context is all"), so you might like to both situate the text in the context of the mid 20th century, in particular the German and Soviet state's treatment of the other (I normally recommend Hannah Arendt's works on the German situation as a go to here, try Eichmann in Jerusalem, itself a highly ironic text); then, having done so, be aware that the text's alternate context is third wave feminism and reread the text through the kind of Marxist versus Radical (post-structuralist) feminisms debates on gender in the 1980s. The scientific availability of fertility and fertility control methods is insignificant compared to the social context of use of birth control. Culturally enforced non-breeding among a large proportion of the women controlled by patriarchs is more significant than IVF. Also, why on earth would a patriarch put a baby in his wife: don't be disgusting, that's just not done culturally. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about incest; I was talking about inbreeding problems. They are different but related concepts. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So, I get the picture that somehow the United States of America is being transformed into the Republic of Gilead, a theocratic totalitarian patriarchal state rooted in old Jewish customs from an ancient era in which Jews were trying to develop their sense of identity but then this societal structure is mistakenly transplanted into the United States of America to create the Republic of Gilead? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think at least one of the confusing things about your original comment and probably why people thought you were referring to incest taboos is you said they "can't reproduce with each other". There's no "can't" about it for humans in most cases for biological reasons. You may have a higher miscarrriage rate and have a higher risk of genetic disorders, but there's nothing stopping it even in cases of full siblings. The only reason why "can't" would come in to it is if social issues make such incest untenable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gilead doesn't particularly care about the negative genetic consequences of inbreeding. "Context is all." Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Against God's will"

How many things in history have been described as "against God's will" but nevertheless became widely accessible, distributed, available or just normalized? I'm just wondering this question, because I just looked up in vitro fertilization and there was this timeline that said something about a large portion of Americans that thought it was against God's will. It also occurred to cloning. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an unanswerable question. We cannot enumerate and give you a strictly accurate and reliable count of the number of "things" in all of history (what is a "thing" anyways?) that any of the billions of people who have ever lived have ever stated was against God's will. --Jayron32 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

bacon cheeseburgers? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Final scene / climax in Hamlet

In the final scene (climax) of Hamlet, all of the major characters are killed off: King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, Laertes, and Hamlet himself. These are very significant deaths, as they constitute all of the major characters in the play; furthermore, all of these significant deaths happen in one fell swoop, in a matter of a few minutes. Further furthermore, Hamlet finally gets (through the death of Claudius) his revenge that had been so elusive to him throughout the rest of the entire play. So, it is generally understood that this scene constitutes the "high point" and the climax of the play. So, here is my question. After all of these important and significant deaths, the English ambassador arrives on scene and says, almost matter-of-factly, "Oh, by the way, I am here to let you all know that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead". Given that the other four deaths are much more significant (i.e., the more significant characters), this news relating the additional two deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seems very anti-climactic and almost out of place. Is there any reason (dramatic, plot-driven, etc., or otherwise) as to why Shakespeare would present the climax scene in this way? In the final scene, why would Shakespeare show us all the deaths of the four significant characters, but yet end the play on the very anti-climactic note of reporting the deaths of these two minor characters? To me, it seems very incongruous and out of place, almost a "let down" to end the final scene like that. Really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, anyway? And, even if this news had not been reported, the audience/reader could easily have assumed that their deaths occurred simply by the previous events in the previous scenes. So, what's the point? Any ideas as to why Shakespeare thought that this was so important to include? And to include, of all places, at that particular point in the play? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no short answer, really. See Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It ties up loose ends (a bit clumsily, but still ties them up nonetheless). The two were involved (likely unwittingly, but involved nonetheless) in the plot to have Hamlet executed by the King of England. So, they death, like the death of Claudius and everyone else who may have wronged Hamlet at all in the play, is tied up in the climax scene. --Jayron32 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And after writing that, Wikipedia has an article titled Rosencrantz and Guildenstern which briefly explains their death and the reason for it. --Jayron32 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's a better link -- although I don't think it tells the full story. What it comes down to is that for Shakespeare, there was no such thing as a throwaway character. In spite of everything else that has happened, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still matter enough for their fates to be worth noticing. But that isn't the full story either -- as with many things in Shakespeare, there are levels on levels here. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

With Shakespeare, the full story is never the full story. They say life imitates art; well, in this case, the art in the plays imitates the life of the writer, where there was always more to the story of who he was than the too-easy-but-good-enough-for-public-consumption "William Shakespeare of Stratford". That worked for a few centuries, but we now have a different standard, where good enough is never good enough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to spout this baloney whenever a question about Shakespeare is asked? It contributes exactly nothing whatever to answering the question. Paul B (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Don't attack contributors in front of the OP; and (2) It may not be directly to do with the OP's question, but it's still an interesting point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It was all a long time ago, when writers were more naive, and near the beginning of the tradition of English theatre, so it seems necessary to entertain the possibility that, at least in some ways, Shakespeare just wasn't very good at it.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first to have a low opinion of the Bard. Leo Tolstoy, no less, had two bites at the cherry when writing to Anton Chekhov: You know I can't stand Shakespeare's plays, but yours are even worse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Rosencrantsz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is meant to be a serious literary analysis of Hamlet, and so might not be so useful for the OP. But by all means, watch the movie, read the play, or catch it live if you can. It is great, and, unlike Hamlet, quite original ;) I'm sure there are serious scholarly articles on this question, but it's hard for me to find them: it's not my field, and the very famous Stoppard play fills my searches with chaff. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My answer is that this shows the working out of Claudius' plan, as commandeered by Hamlet. I'm tickled that you used the phrase "one fell swoop", which originates in Macbeth. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize that the phrase originated in Macbeth! Although I am not surprised that it originated with Shakespeare. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bathetic comic relief, per On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth. 86.182.25.18 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I appreciate the input. It was very helpful. Happy Thanksgiving! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Good night, sweet prince. And, personally, how nice - and, unfortunately, rare - to see someone express thanks. The rest is silence. 86.182.25.18 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's sometimes claimed that the line was added because Ben Jonson complained that the fate of the characters was a loose end. But the line also functions to emphasise the sudden turn-around in events precisely because the news is now irrelevant. The ambassador suddenly funds himself as an outsider in a situation he can't understand. Paul B (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never heard that theory. But, without the line added, would it really be a loose end? Wouldn't the reader (or theatre audience) pretty much assume that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were indeed killed by the English king? Hamlet's (fake) "commission" was pretty clear in its instructions; and the English king presumed that the commission was on orders of the Danish king. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What Iran sanctions are these?

Mentioned in this article.

I need to link to something on Wikipedia and the article I tried doesn't mention it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that is not the right article? The article mentions an oil embargo against Iran and so does the page you linked to. RudolfRed (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that the embargo is currently in effect, or that the agreement mentioned in the next section deals with it. I'm reluctant to just add information when I'm not clear on what is being said.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program

Is this agreement a treaty subject to U.S. Congressional approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.38.145 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not an answer, but it looks like this question relates to mine above.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, it is not a treaty requiring U.S. Senate approval. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an article about it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pssst. Look on the main page. Upper right corner. --Jayron32 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In a desperate attempt to get an answer when no one provided one, I tried "Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program". I didn't figure Wikipedia would have an article title like that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean "In the news". Why didn't you say so?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32 more or less did? BTW, that article much have plenty of redirects and links from our articles so whatever the title it can't be that hard to find. Wikipedia's search engine may be slightly slow to update, but there's always Google, Bing .... Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That last suggestion was what I meant by "desperate attempt". But I had searched all over the place and I guess I was in the wrong place. The upper right corner is where it lists my contributions, so that didn't make sense at first.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)