Open main menu

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


September 15Edit

Why do they pick those Iowa caucus dates?Edit

Why isn't it the same week or month every year? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not held every year. And the caucus/primary calendar is the result of a lot of jostling back and forth between the states and parties. Various states which want to have more influence on the process often move their primaries earlier. Iowa is guaranteed to be the earliest delegate-selection event, and New Hampshire to be the first primary election, so they have to be earlier than any other state's primary. Then every so often, people complain that the nomination process is becoming ridiculously long and/or early, so everything is pushed back... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the name of fallacy where you over-include a person's argument?Edit

Take this Bible verse for example on 'homosexuality' --> "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, [...]." And then Christians view that as the Bible condemns homosexuality. Well guess what, the Bible didn't say "when a woman lies with another woman" only man-on-man. And the definition of homosexuality goes both genders. So the Bible only specifically condemns man-on-man homosexuality and not woman-on-woman. So when a Christian argues the Bible condemns "homosexuality" they actually inflate the definition to include woman-on-woman. What would you call this kind of fallacy, where someone takes your argument to include another argument? Not calling this a strawman argument where they change your argument (completely), but they added on your argument to include something else. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Faulty generalization may be the answer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a matter of making assumptions. Assumptions can be defensible or indefensible. In my opinion you can't say that the example you have given constitutes a "fallacy". A supporting argument may render the assertion not a fallacy at all. Or the supporting argument can be weak and the extension of males to include females in the referred-to prohibition can concluded to be indefensible. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention the assumption that men only sin with a male if they do it lying down.--Shantavira|feed me 15:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"If a man lies with a man as with a woman" always confused me. Is this assuming that men and women have oral and anal sex ? That doesn't seem likely, as sex was supposed to be only for reproductive purposes in the Bible. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
What Talmud say yo? Though that's only Scripture if you're orthodox. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The you may have no fun, have sex only for reproductive purpose always seemed a stretch to me. After all, There is a whole book in the Bible dedicated to life pleasures, women included (just ask Solomon). Methink the correct interpretation would be "have fun with sex, all the more so when reproduction ensue". Gem fr (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point. The Bible actually is the opinions of many different authors, all cobbled together and claimed to be the word of God, which of course is nonsense, because God wouldn't constantly change his mind about everything, unless God is a woman. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Some Jewish Rabbis have come to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible does not prohibit lesbian sex. Christians are not quite in the same position because of the New Testament verse Romans 1:26. The overall fallacy is probably Faulty generalization... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice that the fallacy was already named above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We have articles on a number of non-procreative / non-penetrative sexual Biblical activities:

  • Genesis, method of abiogenesis unknown > expelled from Paradise
  • Onan, coitus interuptus > executed by God
  • most likely, quite a few more.
  • Forunatley (or not), Homo Sapiens survives while whilst God † is extinct.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

God is not dead, He's just not feeling very well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, I still think the answer is some type of strawman fallacy. If the strawman fallacy is "I argued A, he changed my argument to B," my above example is "I argued A, he changed my argument to A and B, but I did not say B." 67.175.224.138 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

No, a strawman is a (false) argument to (claim to) destroy another argument. No such thing here. Gem fr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
How does what you say contradict what I say? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't see the argument to be destroyed, nor the strawman argument destroyed instead. Unless you make the initial claim "woman-on-woman is Bible-OK", in which case the conter-argument "look at {this verse, which actually only mention man-on-man}, it is not" would indeed be a strawman, but that is not the way you asked, is it? Gem fr (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay wow, we're not even on the same page here. I said my definition of a strawman is "I argued A, he changed my argument to B (and therefore argued against B)." Is that not what a straw man is? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
see Straw man#Structure. Your definition seems close enough to the more usual "I argued A, he argued against easily defeated B as if A=B then claimed to have destroyed A" (for instance because B is exaggerated A, so winning against B do not mean you defeated A). Now, what I don't see is how this relates to the question you asked, which was "they have a text about men, and they claim it applies to men and women alike, this is a fallacy, what is the name of it?". My answer (for what it is worth) was: this looks like inference (or, better yet, inductive reasoning), it may or may not be a fallacy depending on the matter (for instance : men are mortel, men are human beings, so human beings -- women included -- are mortal. This is valid) . I can add: a strawman would be "they quote a verse where men only are mentioned, so women are exempted"; that would be a strawman if (if! I don't know if they do!) they actually quoted not only this verse, but something more that that you fail to acknowledge (some other verse, some context that imply a broader meaning, ...)Gem fr (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I was only referencing just that 1 Bible verse. I find it highly unlikely another part of the Bible condemns women-on-women homosexuality, so for my purposes I'm only arguing from just that 1 verse. Obviously, this is not so much a fallacy problem, but a communication problem. If I were writing a summary-pamphlet on the Bible, I would be precise to say "the Bible condemns male-on-male homosexuality" and not "homosexuality." And most simpletons won't raise their hand and say "Hey wait a minute, what about woman-on-woman homosexuality?" I guess if this is or isn't a fallacy, it doesn't have a name. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
Sounds fair. Now, @AnonMoos quoted Romans 1:26 , and "you must not follow the practices of the land of Egypt" could be conveying the same sort of meaning as greek love (or not, I don't know). Anyway, to argue that a practice is allowed from a statement a similar practice is forbidden is argumentum a contrario, which is sometimes legit (eg: you shall not have sex with under 18 girls-> so you may if she is 18+), sometimes not (you shall not kill->so having someone else do the deed is OK) Gem fr (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Gem fr, you still haven't answered my definition of a strawman in the example format I used. I said a strawman was "where I argued A, and the person changed my argument to B, and argued against B." You said a whole lot of mumble jumble. So when I said "how does what you say contradict what I said?" you still answered it in mumble jumble rather than by example. What would be your version of "I argued A, person instead argued against B?" 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
I did not, and still don't, understand what you meant by the person changed my argument to B, hence I just redirected you to our article. If your argument A really imply B, then, it is perfectly legit to argue against B as a way to argue against A. (I can provide example, but so you do, too). If B has no link to A, this is a fallacy, but not a strawman (eg: A:"Bible forbids homosexuality" B:"The moon is giant cheese"). Only if B as some link to A, but not enough (so that proving B is false do not prove A false), is the argument a strawman fallacy (eg A:"skydiving is safe enough" B:"jumping out of a plane, just like that, is safe enough") Gem fr (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
In order to argue against B, they had to change your argument to B, no? Or is it 1 of the "I said A, he argued against B, and I'm scratching my head, was he replying to me, or saying something unrelated? Do I have to point out that B wasn't my argument" type of thing. Imo, straw man might as well be a category class of arguments, with so many different types of straw mans. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
I'll go for "I said A, he argued against B, and I'm scratching my head..." And it makes sense to consider that strawman is actually a category, depending on the way A relates to B, however, I don't think it really matters. We distinguish things when it is actually useful to do so, to have a typology of different strawman doesn't seem o be such case. Gem fr (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You may check inference. This is pretty common, including in matter of law. This may or may not be a fallacy, depending on the matter and the context, and would be decided by scholars.
As for the specifics of homosexuality as the Bible see it, it looks like scholars are divided, and some indeed concluded that god don't care about woman-on-woman, but surely not just because only men are mentioned as active in the chapter. Gem fr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Consider this from the point of an Aristotelian syllogism or a fairly simple Boolean / Venn diagram.
However, it seems you just want to prove your point despite evidence to the contrary. If logics does not help, you may need a rabbi specialising in lesbian readings of the Torah.
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
When the Bible (or any law book, for what it matters) ever was a "fairly simple Boolean / Venn diagram", to be viewed as just another Aristotelian syllogism? I certainly am the sophist enough to say "Oh look, the verse says I should not approach the woman, and I did not: SHE did the approaching. So I am not guilty", but this would be pure bad faith and strawman (aka: fallacy) and I know it, and so do you, I guess. I don't know, nor care, what this ancient law actually say, anyway; I understand that some people do care, in which case, the way to resolve this, is just to ask scholars, NOT to claim to be one and to use obviously irrelevant formal logic. Gem fr (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
LOL - I guess we could make a diagram-map as to what books of the Bible Christians interpret literally and what parts interpret as non-literally. Imo the book of Revelations they interpret non-literally. Some books like Genesis depends on the denomination. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
Interpreting much of the Bible literally, including Genesis, requires denying the evidence from multiple branches of science. For example, the 6 "days" in which God supposedly created the universe must be stretched out to over 14 billion years, with some days being far longer than others. Then there's the problem of the Bible contradicting itself, although I suppose you can massacre your enemies, as in the OT, then turn the other cheek, as in the NT. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah trivial stuff. But I am curious to know if any other books besides Revelations that Christians don't interpret literally? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
You can't generalize about what Christians do or don't do. Literalists consider the Bible to be totally true and science to be wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
See Liberal Christianity: "The word liberal in liberal Christianity originally denoted a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture according to modern philosophic perspectives and modern scientific assumptions, while attempting to achieve the Enlightenment ideal of objective point of view, without preconceived notions of the authority of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma". I imagine that most mainstream Christians view the Bible through this lens to a greater or lesser extent, in Europe at least. Biblical literalism is a feature of American evangelical Protestantism. This article gives the previous pope's view, which is not literalist, and he was considered to be deeply conservative. See also Faith & Science by the current Archbishop of Canterbury: "Creationist science is a particular variety of questionable science pretending to defend theology". Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, of course I can (by the denomination). My point is all Christians do not interpret Revelations literally, but some interpret Genesis literally, some don't. I was asking where else in the Bible besides Revelations do no Christians interpret literally. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
You're saying no Christians interpret Revelation literally. That's incorrect. (And it's Revelation, not Revelations.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like not Christians also interpret Revelation literally; The way Chinese Social Credit System works seems so much like something inspired by Revelation 13:15/17... Gem fr (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to side with faulty generalization as being the best descriptor here. It's definitely some type of inductive fallacy. Essentially, Person X believes A. Person Y believes that A implies B, and therefore argues that X must also believe B. This is like an inversion of appeal to motive (the fact you made that argument implies...). X→A, Y→(A and B), X, therefore B. See also the association fallacy. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

US prosections by FBIEdit

Watching "Mindhunter" when the FBI wanted to search and then charge Wayne Bertram Williams they had to convince the state District Attorney to issue a warrant at each stage. Being British I might have this wrong but I thought that the FBI could make a federal prosecution without permission from the state. What can and what can't the FBI do without state permission? - Q Chris (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many things that are illegal under one or more state laws but that are legal under federal law, so only state authorities can prosecute those things. What I don't know is why the FBI would be investigating them. One possibility is there was an activity that crossed state lines that was illegal in the state law of one or more of the states involved. E.g. tobacco-growing states like South Carolina have low taxes on cigarette sales, but New York has very high taxes on them, so there is a steady "industry" of people buying cigarettes in SC and selling them illicitly in NY. That breaks NY law (but maybe not federal), yet it is interstate (which could mean FBI attention). This is just a guess though. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation is a law enforcement agency. From the article: "Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted." Not sure about how they work with the attorney's in each state, perhaps it depends on the crime, or perhaps the TV writer took some liberties. RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The crime of kidnapping is investigated by the FBI, but prosecuted under state law. Kidnapping#United_States The FBI website at [1] describes other crimes the FBI will investigate, but some of which would also be tried at the state level. RudolfRed (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains it. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
There are also services the FBI will perform under contract for various state and local agencies; for example their crime lab may perform various forensic science tests that other agencies may not be able to perform for lack of equipment or expertise. The FBI does aid in state crime investigations in many ways, often under the invitation of local authorities, who may be investigating crimes that have both state-level and federal-level potential for prosecution, and the FBI and local agencies would collaborate and coordinate their investigations so evidence is shared among agencies. The FBI has various internal departments for coordinating such investigations, including the Office of Partner Engagement. --Jayron32 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashburnham Place & John BickerstethEdit

Was the Rev. John Bickersteth who inherited Ashburnham Place in 1953 the same John Bickersteth who became Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1975? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly sounds likely, based on his age, and interest in religion in both cases. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not really the kind of answer DuncanHill was looking for. He could have figured that out for himself. We deal in sources and references here. --Viennese Waltz 10:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So is Viennese Waltz too incompetent and/or lazy to prevent "no deal"? Here is a picture of the Rev. Bickersteth [2]. Here is a picture of the Rt Rev. John Bickersteth [3]. The Rev. Bickersteth married Marlis (née Kindlimann) and they had three children. Marlis died (after her husband) in 2012. The Rt Rev. John Bickersteth died in 2018. 92.8.216.35 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Play nicely please. The Ashburnham chap was John David Bickersteth (1926-1991) according to the National Archives. The bishop (article linked above) was John Monier Bickersteth (1921-2018). Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The obituary to which I linked doesn't give a date of death but it is datelined 28 February 2018. Our article John Bickersteth gives his age at death as 96. 92.8.216.35 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
John David Bickersteth [4] was the grandson of Lady Margaret Ashburnham, [5], who was the daughter of Bertram Ashburnham, 4th Earl of Ashburnham. So John David inherited Ashburnham Place from Lady Catherine Ashburnham, who was his second cousin, since they shared a common great grandfather, the 4th Earl. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I have tweaked the article to clarify things a little. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

European Surrealism of the 12th and 13th CenturiesEdit

In Mark Wagner (artist)'s blog, I read:

Some years ago, while kicking around the shelves of the school art library, I stumbled on a book titled "European Surrealism of the 12th and 13th Centuries." This struck me as odd because in art class, I'd just learned that Andre' Breton invented Surrealism in the 1920s. But here was page after page of evidence to the contrary: sculptures and manuscript illuminations indulging unmistakable flights of fancy. All this hundreds of years before Breton.

I can't find a book with such a title. Probably Wagner misremembers the title, or it is a chapter or a paper in some book. I could ask Wagner, but I can also ask you. Can you find the book?

--Error (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The art movement is of the early twentieth century. But one can say one senses a surrealistic sensibility in anything. I guess this is original research. This brings to mind a discussion as to whether Nazca Lines can be considered Land art.

I just noticed/remembered—it actually got into the article: "The Earth art of the 1960s were sometimes reminiscent the much older land works, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds, the Nazca Lines in Peru, Carnac stones and Native American burial grounds, and often evoked the spirituality of such archeological sites." Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not rare for people to name a thing, and at the same time claim to have found it existing a long time before, just without someone to care to name it. For instance Hieronymus Bosch has been claimed to be surrealist and is included in Category:Dutch_surrealist_artists . Somehow Giuseppe Arcimboldo is not in the category, despite being mentioned in text. Gem fr (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Tate says surrealism is a "twentieth-century literary, philosophical and artistic movement that explored the workings of the mind, championing the irrational, the poetic and the revolutionary". MoMA says surrealism "was an artistic, intellectual, and literary movement led by poet André Breton from 1924 through World War II." Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is the difference between a name and a descriptor. There is a 20th century art movement called Surrealism (a formal name) which applies only to artists that worked in that tradition, people like Dali and Magritte and the like. There is also, unrelated to the formally-named art movement called "Surrealism" (capital S) a general concept of "surrealism", that is art which has the general characteristic of being "surreal" (little-s). Artists like Bosch are undoubtedly "surreal" (little-s), but as he worked outside of the context of "Surrealism" (big-S), his works are not part of that movement. --Jayron32 12:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If by "surreal" we mean "of or relating to Surrealism", we do not find surreal works prior to the 20th century. The Garden of Earthly Delights has nothing to do with The Persistence of Memory. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not for us to say. And the matter (art) is not of the kind where a consensus among specialist (art critics) is expected. So I am not that surprised we may be somewhat inconsistent. I have no problem imagining that a art piece is surrealist (because, when you enjoy it, you think it is, because it fulfills the condition admitted for a piece to be so) while its author is not (because lived before, or even long before, the movement). Not that a problem. Gem fr (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Impossible, Gem fr, impossible. Saying it is so won't make it so. Surrealism is said to be an outgrowth of Dadaism, which itself is unprecedented. Do you see drooping watch-pieces prior to The Persistence of Memory? Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No, but having melted timepieces can't be an absolute requirement, can it ? There is plenty of equally bizarre imagery in the centuries before. Even the (written) imagery in the Book of Revelation is quite bizarre. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"Bizarre" isn't the hallmark of Surrealism. True, melted time-pieces are not a requirement. Long cast shadows, emptiness of human beings, remnants of architecture of a long bygone era. These are some of the hallmarks of Surrealism. Do you see them prior to the 20th century? Which painting prior to the 20th century would you call Proto-Surrealism? Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, you seem able to define if a piece of art is surrealist or not. Such definition just cannot depend on the living period of the author, that you may sometimes not be able to know. Gem fr (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you point to a painting—on or off Wikipedia—that was made prior to the 20th century that you feel bears the hallmarks of surrealism? Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, there is art that meets the definition of the plain-English word surreal. See here to learn what it means. However, there is a formally defined art movement called "Surrealism" that is defined in a historical context. Not all art that a person could describe as surreal is defined by art historians and critics and the like as part of the art movement called "Surrealism". Being a part of an art movement has only partially to do with the physical qualities of the art, it ALSO has to do with the cultural, social, and historical context in which the art was created. People like Hieronymous Bosch may have painted art that was, of a kind, surreal, but they did not work within the cultural, social and historical context that would classify them as part of the Surrealist movement. --Jayron32 12:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32—couldn't a person meaningfully speak about the Pop art sensibilities embodied in the painting called The Garden of Earthly Delights? Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
One could say that there were elements similar to those elements that were present in the Pop Art movement. One could not say that this means that Bosch was a member of the Pop Art movement, or that his work was a Pop Art painting. Those are different things. Likewise, one could say that Bosch's painting had elements that were also present in the later paintings of the Surrealist Movement. That does not mean that Bosch was a member of that movement, or that his painting was a Surrealist painting. --Jayron32 12:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"Likewise, one could say that Bosch's painting had elements that were also present in the later paintings of the Surrealist Movement." No, Bosch's painting did not contain "elements" that were also present in the later paintings of the Surrealist Movement. But if you think so, then please name those "elements". Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I never said that it contained those elements. I was noting that from an argument point of view, it would be a valid argument to use adjectives such as "surreal" to describe the Bosch painting. Even if one were to make those arguments, it would not, however, make his painting part of the Surrealist movement. His work may or may not contain such elements. I was noting only that even if they did, it would never be appropriate to describe it as part of the Surrealist movement. That was my point. If you say it didn't, that's fine too. I was not arguing that it actually did, merely that it could, and it wouldn't make any difference to the argument at hand. --Jayron32 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And, Bus stop, not only could one say, but people have actually said and written it, that Bosch's elements of hybridising things and organisms (stuff that doesn't combine in "reality", at least until very recently, nor is part of existing traditional mythological chimeric combinations) and Bosch's elements of play with sizes and proportions are similar to the surrealists' cadavres exquisites, see also exquisite corpse. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sluzzelin—do you have a source supporting that "Bosch's elements of hybridising things and organisms [...] are similar to the surrealists'"? Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article titled Proto-Surrealism that has sourced paragraphs that discuss such things. This article at Medium.com, This paper here also discusses it. This article here notes the direct influence Dali drew from Bosch's work. This article here notes "Bosch anticipates many of the strategies and symbols used in 20th century Surrealism, particularly the art of Salvador Dali" and goes on to give specific elements of his work that do so. This book here discusses how Bosch's work pre-figured the Surrealists. --Jayron32 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
A quick perusal of your sources turns up this: "However, the creepy images Bosch painted are not surrealist in the modern sense." You are also saying "This article here notes the direct influence Dali drew from Bosch's work." That is irrelevant. Who cares if Dali drew influence from Bosch's work? I thought we were discussing whether or not Bosch's work bore any of the hallmarks of surrealism. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I was discussing that he wasn't a Surrealist regardless of whether or not his work did contain elements in common with the later Surrealist movement. I did not, am not, and never will make any statement about whether or not his work did or did not contain those elements. I never have said that, I will continue to never say that. I will however, continue to reiterate that even if it did (allowing for both the possibilities that it does or does not) his work should not be classified as part of a 20th century art movement. --Jayron32 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you just stop asking me? I am no art critic, and even if I were, I am not supposed to do original research. As I already wrote upstairs, Hieronymus Bosch has been claimed to be surrealist and is included in Category:Dutch_surrealist_artists . Was it right to do so? I dunno, I am not competent in the field to say even 2 cents about that. I just suppose that contributors who did that, knew what they were doing. Gem fr (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Proto-Surrealism illustrates the concept of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I'm not an art critic either. There is nothing accomplished whatsoever by blurring an intellectual boundary such as that which delineates the period of 1917 to 1945 during which time it is said that Surrealism was an art movement. In fact it shows contempt for the intellectual definition of that art movement to say that we see it here, there, and everywhere. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16Edit

Do we know how many of the Soviet people who were evacuated in 1941-1942 permanently stayed in the eastern USSR?Edit

Do we know how many of the Soviet people who were evacuated in 1941-1942 (in response to Operation Barbarossa and Case Blue) permanently stayed in the eastern USSR? My own Jewish paternal grandfather and his parents and brother fled from Vinnytsia (then in the Ukrainian SSR, now in Ukraine) to Stalingrad and then again to Kuybyshev Oblast (now Samara Oblast; then in the Russian SFSR, now in Russia) once the Nazis were on the verge of reaching Stalingrad. None of them ever moved back to Ukraine after the end of World War II but instead remained in the Russian SFSR--with the parents remaining in Kuybyshev Oblast while my paternal grandfather and his brother eventually moved to other parts of the Russian SFSR once they became adults.

This personal family story motivated me to ask this question--how many of the Soviet people who were evacuated in 1941-1942 never actually moved back to the western USSR after their former homelands were liberated and instead permanently stayed in the more eastern parts of the USSR? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First, your family was wise to get out of there when they did. As for records, somehow I doubt if the Russians much cared to keep those type of records or to make them public. If they did, then they might be asked why people didn't feel safe enough to return, and that would bring up the massacres they committed there. So, finding records could be tricky, if any still exist. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This looks like it might have some promising leads to help you with your research. --Jayron32 12:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Gulag Archipelago indicates that most of them would not have reached the east and of those that did, many would have been interred and then if any of the remaining had chosen to relocate this would more than likely have been viewed as a crime and they too would have been interred, most likely to never emerge. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean "interned" (kept prisoner) rather than "interred (buried), but in any case, as Jayron32 has pointed out below, you're referring to events entirely different from those Futurist 110 was asking about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of Stalin's subjects were "interred" as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And I wouldn't have put it past Stalin to do an occasional immurement as well, just for fun. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The OP was asking about people who evacuated to escape the invading German army during WWII, not those who were sent to the Gulags. That's a different question. --Jayron32 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the relevant article is Evacuation in the Soviet Union. Not a very helpful title but it describes "...the mass migration of western Soviet citizens and its industries eastward as a result of Operation Barbarossa, the German military invasion of June 1941. Nearly sixteen million Soviet civilians and over 1,500 large factories were moved to areas in the middle or eastern part of the country by the end of 1941". Unfortunately, no information on the post-war period, but since the arms factories mostly stayed put east of the Urals (see Chelyabinsk or "Tankograd" for example) the people who worked there must have had to stay put too. The state decided where you lived and worked. See also Population transfer in the Soviet Union and Forced settlements in the Soviet Union. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sport as vanityEdit

Are there major views, philosophical theories or other approaches that regard sport (particularly professional competitions) as a sort of vanity fair and/or costly business model of transient importance that benefits only a limited number of people? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps for the more expensive sports. Possibly golf and tennis, and definitely polo and yacht races. But the health benefits of inexpensive sports, like soccer, effectively counter any such arguments there. There has also been concern that in some sports, like boxing, those at the top get rich, while the rest barely make enough to survive, especially when medical expenses are included. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
One can argue that the health benefits of sport become health damage if professionally practiced. --Error (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Early roots of sports are founded in military practice. There are always attempts to claim that one sport or another has no practical background. For example, surfers often claim that surfing is the only leasure sport, created just to enjoy life. However, it was actually started as training to catch a wave and make it over shallow reefs. Once you were good at it, you could easily ride an outrigger over the reefs. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"Early roots of sports are founded in military practice." Can't speak for any other sports, but that's certainly not the case for cricket or football, both of which arose bottom-up as popular entertainment in English villages and towns, played by people who wanted to have fun. The same thing would therefore apply to that self-serving claim from surfing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
All or most of these sports involve exercise, which I don't think qualifies as "vanity". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The "football" sports were mounted sports, played on foot (hence the name, football). The mounted version was a way to demonstrate ability to move around on horseback. There are also "hit a ball with a stick" games originally used to train boys in swordmanship. The issue is where the "game" starts. If I create 5-base baseball, is that a completely new game or is it rooted in existing 4-base baseball? Depending on your opinion, you move the start of the game earlier or later. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the claim that bat-and-ball games originated as training in swordsmanship? Having done certain forms of historical fnecing myself, the techniques are totally different to hitting a bat with a ball. (Although there may still a benefit in training hand-eye coordination, and in building the strength and stamina needed to swing a sword around for the duration of a fight). Iapetus (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, bat and ball training would be more applicable for training to use a club or mace, where the ball represented the head of the enemy. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
For baseball history, see rounders. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Without getting too deep in the weeds here, most of our modern sports developed (as broad classes of games) independently in many cultures around the world. "Running around and advancing a ball into a goal" broadly describes not only European-style football games, but also various forms of the Mesoamerican ballgame, the North American Pasuckuakohowog, Cuju in the far east, Kī-o-rahi among the Maori, etc. etc. Many of these developed independently, and aside from the various minutiae that makes them different, would all be broadly recognized as football in some form. Native American lacrosse bears much in common with various forms of hockey, Sepak takraw with various European net-and-ball sports like volleyball or tennis, etc. Really, it's amazing how many times similar sports arose in unrelated cultures around the world. --Jayron32 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's not forget the social benefit of sports: amicable competition, cooperation, comradery, team spirit, friendly rivalry, etc. 2606:A000:1126:28D:F881:E9AE:5500:8658 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Several Basque rural sports come from laborer activities after the addition of betting.
America’s Wildly Successful Socialist Experiment argues that, simplifying, sports in America is entertainment, sports in Europe is another thing. I think I have read it described as a continuation of war by other means.
--Error (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If so, that would be a variation of the more famous quote by Carl von Clausewitz, being in the original "War is the continuation of politics by other means." --Jayron32 19:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has yet answered this by saying "everything is vanity". But maybe someone thought of doing so, but decided it was vanity. Anyway, here's a version of the primary source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway supposedly said that mountain climbing and automobile racing are the only real sports, while the rest are only games. On the other hand, Garry Kasparov said that chess was the most brutal and violent of all sports. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget Bean Bag. W.C. Fields once said he had attended the world championships in Paris, and that there were many fatalities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Highest number of points received in any video gameEdit

What is the highest number of points that has been received in any video game?? I understand these terms for units larger than a point, each one 1000 times the preceding one:

Kilopoint, megapoint, gigapoint, terapoint, cetiopoint, seismopoint, zettapoint, yottapoint

(For the reason I use the fifth and sixth of these, please see section #16 of Talk:Metric prefix.) Note that I suggest you use whichever of these units produces a number of the unit greater than or equal to 1 but less than 1000. Georgia guy (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There are browser games that have exponential growth in "points" limited only by the ability of computers to store and display large numbers. Most stop at a bit less than 10308 (the largest number in double-precision floating-point format), but I've seen one or two that went past that, into four-digit orders of magnitude. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I half remember something where you could get a score of infinity. If that hasn't been done, it should be. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17Edit

Children of Progressive Conservatives from the Mulroney timesEdit

Besides Peter McKay and Maxime Bernier, whose fathers were Progressive Conservative politicians during Brian Mulroney's premiership, who else was part of Stephen Harper's government whose parent was a member of Mulroney's government or was a Progressive Conservative politician? Donmust90 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Japanese Reaction to the Battle of MidwayEdit

Do we know how Hideki Tojo and the rest of the Japanese leadership responded to their loss at Midway? How about the general Japanese populace? -- 202.172.113.133 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

About the general populace, from the article that you have yourself linked to: "On 10 June, the Imperial Japanese Navy conveyed to the military liaison conference an incomplete picture of the results of the battle. Chūichi Nagumo's detailed battle report was submitted to the high command on 15 June. It was intended only for the highest echelons in the Japanese Navy and government, and was guarded closely throughout the war. In it, one of the more striking revelations is the comment on the Mobile Force Commander's (Nagumo's) estimates: "The enemy is not aware of our plans (we were not discovered until early in the morning of the 5th at the earliest)."[145] In reality, the whole operation had been compromised from the beginning by American code-breaking efforts.[146]
The Japanese public and much of the military command structure were kept in the dark about the extent of the defeat: Japanese news announced a great victory. Only Emperor Hirohito and the highest Navy command personnel were accurately informed of the carrier and pilot losses. Consequently, even the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) continued to believe, for at least a short time, that the fleet was in good condition.[147]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talkcontribs) 10:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
A referenced Reddit post, Japanese Public's reaction to Midway. Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt if the Japanese public was fooled for long. Those who lost relatives in the battle would tend to notice a lack of letters and visits. And soldiers setting up defense lines closer to Japan would have to wonder why those were needed, if Midway was such a success. And many Japanese ships did make it back from the Battle of Midway, so keeping those soldiers and sailors and airmen all quiet wouldn't be easy (although they took extreme measures to try to keep them quiet). Then there were air strikes from what they recognized as land-based US aircraft, which wouldn't be possible, unless the US had control of Midway. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The question was not about the general public and its understanding of the general progress of the war, and in any case your doubts are not a reliable source. As an example of how well a military secret can be kept, consider that before Midway the Japanese believed they had already destroyed the USS Yorktown at the Battle of the Coral Sea. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
"How about the general Japanese populace?" means this Q is very much about how the general (Japanese) public understood the general progress of the war. And keeping the fate of 1 carrier secret from the enemy for a month is far easier than keeping the fate of 4 of your carriers, many other ships, and many aircraft and personnel secret from your own people, indefinitely. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I did not read to the end of the question. But you are talking about "indefinitely" and that was not part of it. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the length of time, that's a reply not to the original Q, but to your statement about the ability to keep the progress of the war secret from the people. Short term it can work, but long time, not so much. Eventually reality has a way of making itself obvious. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you overestimate the ability of people to obtain information in a nation where freedom is not a thing, and neither is twitter. The only form of communication the government could not control was word of mouth. I'm sure there would be rumors, but hard to imagine people "knowing" much else. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. See RMS Lancastria, a British troopship whose loss in 1940 with 3,000+ deaths was fairly effectively hushed-up for weeks until the US press broke the story. Many British people still don't know about it. The government can say that your son is missing without admitting that his ship (or indeed the most of the fleet) has been lost. Alansplodge (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
They certainly would have been aware that there must be something other than an unbroken string of victories by the time bombs started falling all over Japan. Hard to not notice that. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that was not until November 1944, a long time after Midway. However, the Emperor's admission in August 1945 that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage" can't have been much of a surprise to anyone. Alansplodge (talk)
That has to be the understatement of the century. But there were other earlier indications that all was not rosy. Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II, begun in 1943, made it obvious that something had gone wrong. And anyone with a globe or map of the Pacific could figure out that all those "victories" were inexplicably getting steadily closer to Japan. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, at some stage a change of narrative would be required from "we are the champions" to "backs against the wall", but June 1942 was too soon for them. It was said that civilians in Nazi Germany didn't realise that the invasion of Russia was going wrong until women were asked to hand in their fur coats. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Did they ever admit to the public that the war was going badly, or did the public just have to figure out for themselves that they had been lied to ? Based on Hirohito's statement, it seems as though he was barely even willing to admit they were losing then. In another case, "Baghdad Bob" was infamous for declaring victory right up until the end of the Second Gulf War. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
According to this article, the evacuation of Japanese children from the cities to the countryside and the admission that the Battle of Saipan in July 1944 had been lost, together with the resignation of Tojo, was when everyone realised that the game was up. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
An early opponent of the battle plan said, "I Tojo so." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Just occurred to me we don't know (yet) how top Brass in pentagon react to war events happening in Afghanistan, while the general populace only confusingly feel that things are awry ... The only difference being, some voice can be heard "we are losing, stop it" while Japanese telling that would had been silenced. Gem fr (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Constitution DayEdit

Constitution Day (United States) says it was created on 2004 and before that was known as Citizenship Day. Yet the article's pic from 1974 already shows it under current name and already celebrated. Why is that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If you read the article further down, you see that both names were in use. It says, and I quote, "Iowa schools first recognized Constitution Day in 1911.[5] In 1917, the Sons of the American Revolution formed a committee to promote Constitution Day. The committee would include members such as Calvin Coolidge, John D. Rockefeller, and General John Pershing." So, at least as early as 1911, some were calling it constitution day. Furthermore, other names were given to the day, including "I Am An American Day". The 2004 law did not invent a new name for the day, it formalized and standardized what was until then a haphazard set of celebrations (some formal and some informal) for September 17 in the US. --Jayron32 14:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Civil War ship?Edit

Raid on Combahee Ferry mentions a US Navy ship called the Sentinel, which is not in USS Sentinel. This site of uncertain reliability claims it was a Civil War monitor that was lost in the Battle of Chareston (sic), but I can't find anything to corroborate its existence. Whazzup? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

the steamer "Sentinel," a small craft that looked like a canal-boat with a one-story house built upon it

Emilio, L. F. (1894). History of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, 1863-1865. Boston. p. 39. [6]eric 05:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not clear if Sentinel was a US Navy ship or just commandeered, so I'm going to adjust the phrasing in the raid article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The only other mention I could find:
"NORTHERN DISTRICT, DEPT. or THE SOUTH, Folly Island, S. C. February 22, 1864. Brig. Gen. A. Ames, U. S. Volunteers : General : I am directed by the brigadier-general commanding to state that the steam-boats Sentinel and Delaware are now at Pawnee Landing and will be in readiness to receive to receive troops..."
The War of the Rebellion: Formal reports, both Union and Confederate, of the first seizures of United States property in the Southern States (p. 488) (sorry, snippet view only, the text is from the Google search result).
Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
A bit more: "This force was embarked on three Army steamer transports: Sentinel, John Adams and Harriet A. Weed, all escorted by the Navy gunboat Paul Jones". Early Days on the Georgia Tidewater: The Story of McIntosh County & Sapelo (p. 296)
"The three Army transports — the John Adams, a converted ferryboat of the East Boston Line; the Harriet A. Weed, a steam tug and troop transport; and the Sentinel — lay quietly at the wharf in Beaufort". The Combahee River Raid: Harriet Tubman & Lowcountry Liberation By Jeff W. Grigg (p. 78?)
So it seems that they were army and not navy.Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
And finally, a first-hand account: "It came alongside at noon and proved to be the Sentinel, but looked like a New York canal-boat built up a storey". The narrative goes on to say that six companies (maybe 800 men?) were embarked, so it was of a reasonable size. The Rebelion Record 1863 (p. 296)
I think a company would be anywhere between a maximum of 101 nominal strength, and as low as 40, depending on the number of missing, ill, injured or killed, on leave, etc. https://civilwarhome.com/armyorganization.htm So methink more like 500 men Gem fr (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I found this image of canal boats in 1890, so something along those lines. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I suggest that this thread be copied to the talk page for the article. It would help to explain to any future editors/readers the edits made today. I also find the work you have done interesting and others might as well. Only a suggestion though. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 19Edit

OilEdit

Have Iran accepted responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia? Have they denied responsibility? All the Google searches I get provide propaganda and false results. What are the chances Iran now have Nukes? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Iran has denied responsibility. That is most likely literally true. How far it is true in spirit is a matter of interpretation - as an example, the US sponsored the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, but they did not directly control them and probably did not order any particular attack on the Russians. And it's even more complex - Iran has a number of somewhat independent groups that share control of the state, and one of them may (or may not) be behind the attack, without the others being involved. Again, if a number of rogue NID agents steal a Stargate and commit off-world crimes, is the US responsible? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
How it would be viewed would largely depend on the relations between the two nations before the event. If the nations were allies, then an attack by some small faction in one nation on the other would be taken as a criminal act, with expectations that the criminals be arrested and tried. If the nations were neutral toward each other, this attitude might still prevail. But if the nations are in a proxy war against each other already, then any such action would be taken in that context, with little hope of ever prosecuting the guilty parties. Thus, the only forms of justice available are a military strike (perhaps a precision strike against the guilty parties) or some action against the nation as a whole, like stricter sanctions/blockades. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That mixes up two different things: One is a question of who is responsible (I assume in a fairly neutral moral system, e.g. based on the golden rule and/or the categorical imperative). The other is the question who should be held responsible by involved or semi-involved parties. Note, however, that proxy wars in the cold war did not usually escalate to a level where the principals became targets (though they might intervene more directly by attacking the other sides proxies). Neither the Vietnamese nor the Russians directly attacked the US, and neither the US nor the other Vietnamese directly attacked the Soviet Union. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"Neither the Vietnamese nor the Russians directly attacked the US". Odd claim. Perhaps you mean didn't attack U.S. territory. They certainly attacked U.S. forces. Rmhermen (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Thats what I said, I think. The US is a country. There is a significant difference in escalation between attacking foreign forces on your own or your allies (at least claimed) ground, and attacking a foreign country directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I was also confused by your wording, although I did figure out what you meant. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There is also the concept of distributed responsibility: the idea that if the one actor did one aspect of an action, that does not preclude other people from varying levels of responsibility based on their level of participation in the action or in the lead-up to that action. If, as the Houthi movement claims, they launched the weapons themselves, that doesn't mean that no one else would have any responsibility at all. --Jayron32 17:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
You might consider Just war theory and Jus ad bellum of interest here. At least as western look on that (pretty sure middle East nations have a somewhat different view on the matter, if only because centralization of power is lower, as point out above, sort of like the US Air force could go to war of its own while the Marines wanted none of it...) Gem fr (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I would think that the total clusterfuck of middle east politics over the last 100 or so years would be a challenge for any consistent "just war" theory.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You mean 1000 or so years, don't you? Or was it 10000? Anyway, I think you disregard the universality of the questioning (even the smallest tribe has some tradition regarding the proper condition to go to war), and forget that Persia/Iran has continuously been a quite civilized local power of importance matching Egypt, India, or whatever power we know developed just war theory. So there would be something to be found, and that could actually help. Gem fr (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I mean 100 or so - sure, there was a lot of trouble there from, say 3500 BCE to maybe 1500 CE, but then it became a backwater and got a bit of a rest. I'd think without the oil, it might still be a backwater... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Having people who want to kill anyone with a slightly different religious belief would only be a problem for the locals and those crazy enough to visit, if it weren't for them having the oil wealth to create WMDs/delivery systems so they can threaten other nations, too. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a summary of events so far, as of about 6.5 hours ago. This is likely to change as more information becomes available. --Jayron32 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Have they considered the possibility of it being 2 coordinated simultaneous operations, one by the Houthi rebels and another by Iran ? The rebels claimed to have launched 10 drones, but there were 17 hits, including use of missiles. Maybe Iran wanted the operation to succeed, hence their missiles, but also wanted deniability, hence the Houthi drones. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We can only speculate, but this makes sense indeed. Now, our best option is to grab the pop corn or the xanax (depending on the mood), and watch. Gem fr (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Was Hirohito under the impression that Japan would be allowed to keep Korea following WW2 ?Edit

In Surrender_of_Japan#Broadcast_of_the_Imperial_Rescript_on_surrender, he strangely referred to "Our one hundred million people", which would include the population of Korea. Japan's population was 72 million.

In the same speech there is the outright lie: "...it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement", so perhaps he was just determined to deny reality completely ?SinisterLefty (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was not actually adopted until over 2 weeks later; presumably the actual terms of the surrender had not yet been negotiated and worked out. He may have not known one way or the other. --Jayron32 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure the Emperor was really aware of everything going on. Beside, never before nor during the war Japan made any claim "to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement". The 1937 attack on China had some silly "you have trouble enforcing your sovereignty, I have to help you" official rationale, not "you belong to us and will be part of our empire afterward" (even though you have reason enough to believe this would be the ultimate goal). Likewise for Indochina, Philippines etc.
Also, notice that explicitly telling that is a way to deny any claim on other land. "no, I never claimed this to be mine, rest assured" is quite different of "ye well, you are stronger, so I have to forfeit my legitimate right but, still, mumble mumble"; for example of the difference, just watch the land that changed ownership between Russia and Poland (1920/1945), Germany and France (1871/1919/1940/1945), Germany and Czechia (1938/1945), as opposed to, say, situation of California or Texas (not claimed anymore by Mexico). Gem fr (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The same phrase was used (not by Hirohito) in the announcement of Isoroku Yamamoto's death [7] and also in several articles in the Nippon Times Weekly (January 1944) and a in the Japan Year Book 1941 (p. 193). It seems to have been the way that the Japanese described themselves in wartime.
Hirohito in his rescript says that he has decided to accept "the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers". This is the Potsdam Declaration which clearly states that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." So no, he really can't have been under that impression. However, at the time of the speech, Korea was Japanese territory. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting that Okinawa Island wasn't included, making me think the US contemplated keeping it entirely, but later settled for just covering it with US bases. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I think "minor islands" was intended to potentially include Okinawa. As the article discusses, the intent was to draw a distinction between the four large "home islands" of Japan and other territories which Japan would surrender, including Korea, Sakhalin, Taiwan, and New Guinea. Although, the U.S. did end up occupying Okinawa and other islands until 1972, but, of course, the declaration was intentionally open-ended, to express that Japan's sovereignty beyond the four main islands would be at the determination of the Allied Powers. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Very open-ended in the case of the Kuril Islands, which the Russians have so far declined to return to Japan. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 20Edit

How was California governed before it became a US state?Edit

Was it governed directly by the US Congress? Futurist110 (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You may find List of Governors of California before 1850 useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
California was the remote, lightly populated Mexican province of Alta California until it was occupied by U.S. troops in 1846 at the beginning of the Mexican-American War. It officially became U.S. territory as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Almost simultaneously, gold was discovered in California and the population and economy skyrocketed rapidly. In 1849, a state constitutional convention took place, and it became a state in 1850. This is incredibly fast when you consider that one way communication from Washington to California took months at that time. It seems that the existing states were quite willing to accept a really profitable cluster of gold mines into the Union, although slavery was unsurprisingly an issue. Before 1846, Alta California was ruled mostly by a series of incompetent governors dispatched from Mexico City, and a major political issue was the desire for Californio governors born there. A few of those governors were a bit more competent. From 1846 to 1850, California was ruled by military governors, during the war and its quick aftermath to statehood. History of California is a great overview, and there are countless additional articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
For more detail, see California as I Saw It: First-Person Narratives of California's Early Years, 1849 to 1900 from the Library of Congress. In practical terms, it seems that you had to govern yourself to begin with. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As some more general background, Territorial evolution of the United States is a good starting place for research. Generally, there was a process by which land became a state in the U.S. 1) The US annexed some bit of territory. 2) That territory was, by default, classified as an unorganized territory, which meant that it had no self-government. There was usually a governor appointed by the Congress to administer that land; it may have been a military governor if there was an active war at the time. 3) Once there were enough people to support local government, the territory was incorporated as a Organized incorporated territories of the United States and granted limited self government. These were often not entire unorganized territories at once, rather there was usually some smaller section of that unorganized territory that was set aside and delineated as an organized territory. 4) When the people of the territory (or at least, those with political power) decided to do so, they had a referendum, wrote a constitution, and applied to Congress for statehood. 5) Congress would vote, and if it passed, the territory became a state. As noted above, California's trip through that process was unusually fast (and also included a brief period when a 3-week independent republic (population = 33) was established). 15-20 years was more typical. --Jayron32 15:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, the "population 33" figure is somewhat misleading. It is true that there were only 33 armed men on the Sonoma Plaza when the California Republic rebellion against Mexican rule broke out but they had grown to nearly 200 armed men by the time that they fused into the California Battalion led by John C. Frémont 25 days later. And there were many more civilians that supported the rebellion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget the brief Bear Republic (and yes, obviously I know that bears don't wear briefs, they wear boxers). :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Does Andrew Yang have a chance to win the elections?Edit

Or will every big corporation invest millions of dollars against him if ever he started to get higher in the polls? 118.70.41.222 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. The Oracle doesn't answer here. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI the link to this article is here Andrew Yang Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a pity we did not establish a Pythia where, for a reasonably high fee, we would give cryptic answer like "The ying-yang will turn upside down, Yang will get high and so will Ying, each in turn" Gem fr (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, anyone who runs has a chance. For an estimate of how much of a chance, check the polls. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

118.70.41.222 -- Right now, Yang is a solid third-tier candidate (far behind the first tier of Biden, Warren, and Sanders), and does not appear to be either gaining or losing support at any fast rate. Corporations probably feel more threatened by other candidates... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Corporations don't feel anything. As abstract concepts, they don't have brains, and thus do not feel emotions. --Jayron32 15:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Corporations consist of a bunch of people, no? Those people have brains, emotions, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Under current United States legal doctrine "Corporations are people, my friends" (as Mitt Romney told us in 2011), and according to Supreme Court decisions such as "Citizens United" and "Hobby Lobby", they appear to have more rights than mere flesh-and-blood persons do... AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, they are treated as people for legal purposes. They still don't have bodies, and brains, and the like. --Jayron32 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
They're treated as persons for legal purposes, not "people". As for Romney's remark, apparently he was misunderstood, though in my opinion it was kind of his own fault as he did not express himself well. His point seems to have been that corporations are made up of people, who can be harmed by acts that harm the corporation. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
How would a corporation "feel" something? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's obviously short-hand for how the leadership, shareholders, or employees of the corp feels. You see this type of wording often in newspaper headlines: "GM feels recession". SinisterLefty (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that sometimes it is that. Still, it needs to be made explicit that it is the wealthy individuals themselves, who should of course be named where possible, to whom we ascribe feelings. By depersonalizing the manner in which those people make decisions that affect the bulk of the population, we don't hold them accountable for those decisions; it's "the corporation", not a person, we hold responsible. Which is kinda BS, because it was still some person or persons who had to make the decisions. --Jayron32 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
In once sense, yes, I agree: people make these decisions and should be held accountable (for good or ill), but anyone within a bureaucracy knows that it is more than a group of individuals with their own desires; there is an ingrained culture which exerts itself upon the decisions that bureaucracy makes. Our closet article is probably groupthink, but the "See also" section there is replete with similar concepts. Which is not meant to say the flesh-and-blood people shouldn't still be held accountable, but only to point out that the collective has its own direction, which may loosely be described as feelings/intelligence. Matt Deres (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You might say the very same thing regarding states, "the supreme court", "the planet" or whatever. There are two ways to describe that. The first is the Chinese room: you don't know what is going on inside, but if it behave like it has feeling (like an animal would), the feeling metaphor is legit. The second is that it appears that somehow people are dumb enough to believe these abstraction are somehow real, and not only that, but even part of themselves, so they have feeling regarding them. So it makes sense to speak of the feeling of a CEO / leader of a country as if they were feeling of the company / state. Gem fr (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To actually answer the question: no. He does not have a chance. Barring some tumultuous upset, the Democratic nominee will be one of Biden, Warren, Harris, or Sanders. Sebthepleb (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but to state definitively that he does not have a mathematical chance at all violates the crystal ball rule. It might be the same chance as winning the Powerball, which is very close to zero but is not zero. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh FFS. Okay, fine: in a functional, real-world, actual-chances-of-winning-the-primary sense: NO. The OP was clearly not asking for mathematical exactitude. Happy now? Christ, this stupid place, why do I bother. Sebthepleb (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that even in the real world he has a significant chance, since most Democrats haven't made up their minds yet. It's not necessary that the top candidates all collectively shoot themselves in the foot, Yang could say something funny or brilliant, and get a lot of free press, and more contributions and supporters, and be up at the top by the time the primaries roll around. Going back to math, you can extrapolate a curve a short distance, with reasonable accuracy, but we are over 4 months from the start of the Democratic primaries, and in that time a lot can change, so extrapolating that far is highly unreliable. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No. In the real world where things like facts and reality matter, a fringe candidate like Yang doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance. He has no experience, he has minimal name recognition, and he's polling orders of magnitude behind everyone else. It won't happen. Yes, there is, mathematically, a chance. There is not a realistic one. Reality matters. Sebthepleb (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, in the real world now, political experience may actually be a negative, as it tars one as an "evil Washington insider". Hence we get an incompetent President, Trump. But inexperienced doesn't always mean incompetent. And even though Reagan had political experience as Gov of California, he either wasn't very bright or was in the early stages of Alzheimer's, but he was at least modest enough to know that he didn't know it all, and appoint competent people to do as he directed. This could be a model for Yang, rather than Trump's model of appointing sycophants who are as incompetent as he is (and firing any competent people who manage to sneak in). And, unlike Trump, who merely pretends to be a self-made billionaire, but really rode in on his daddy's coat-tails, Yang really is a self-made millionaire. As for name recognition, Obama wasn't exactly a household name prior to the start of his 1st Presidential campaign. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Trump won the primaries by letting everyone else take each other out, more or less. (there was an excellent analysis of this that I can't be arsed to find right now). Obama gave the keynote at the 2004 Dem convention. Reagan was a movie star and had significant political experience in California. Like, I get you're a leftist--I am too--and one of the greatest failings of our side is our tendency to conflate "what would be awesome" or "what I personally want" with "what can happen." Yang will not win. Period. I'm done here, until you're capable of comprehending the real world. Sebthepleb (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
You will not win the lottery, either. But if you play it, you have a mathematical chance. And note the OP didn't say anything about reality. All he said was, "Does he have a chance?" The answer is YES. For now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
gee. Kudos @Sebthepleb: for not losing your mind to such nonsense. Of course Yang has a mathematical chance, and, after all, so do I or anyone on Earth; the chance is just tremendously low, it would take an enormous number of "if". Said otherwise, he has no practical chance, and everyone knows that. Doesn't mean his running is meaningless. Gem fr (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I don't think all Republicans are incompetent. Bush Senior impressed me. But he was the only recent Republican not to be re-elected President, which may say more about the Republican base than about him. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
We dont care what you think, and it is utterly irrelevant to the OP question. Gem fr (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The same can be said of your 1st reply to this Q. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Elizabethan forms of address for womenEdit

Elizabeth I, who disapproved of the marriage of clergy, said to the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury "Madam I may not call you; mistress I am ashamed to call you; and so I know not what to call you; but howsoever, I thank you".[1]. What was the distinction between madam and mistress that Elizabeth was making? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Protocol, including proper forms of address, used to be a much bigger deal during the 16th century than it is today. The distinctions between such terms is explained here, though it doesn't go into specifics of the Tudor period. This one does. --Jayron32 12:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Partington, Angela, ed. (1996). "Elizabeth I". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Revised Fourth ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN 0198600585.


Nukes & IranEdit

Further to my question earlier. Due to the escalation of aggression by Iran over the past few weeks what are the chances they now have Nukes? If they do, why have they not yet nuked Israel as they have often said they would so. Also, who would their targets be. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Have Iran ever actually said they would nuke Israel? (And if so, under what circumstances?). In any case, I would expect that they realise that nuking a nuclear-weapon state that is allied with the world's most powerful nuclear-weapon state would be a bad idea.Iapetus (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's also important to remember that the internal politics of Iran are, um, complex and that Iran is not a monolithic thing. There are multiple interests at work within Iran, they don't always coordinate, and trying to figure out what "Iran" intends to do is messy, because the various internal political forces don't always want to do the same things for the same reasons, and many times they don't coordinate. There is the religious leadership headed by Ali Khamenei, nominally the Supreme Leader of Iran and on paper the absolute ruler of the country; however there are times when various other factions may or may not follow his lead. There's the civilian government led by President of Iran Hassan Rouhani, which has over time become increasingly reformist. There are two different, independent militaries in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, which each operate mostly independently and may have different political goals and aims. All of these various groups and leaders do not always coordinate, and may operate independently for their own interests. So when we're trying to figure out what Iran intends or why it is acting how it is acting, we really need to ask "what part of Iran?" --Jayron32 14:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
They don't claim to have nuke, nor any of their enemies claim they do, so it is safe to say they still don't. And it seems they said quite a number of time they wanted to destroy the evil, vile, satanic Jews/Israel, but the extent of the will is not known, and while they support some faction like Hezbollah, they don't do it in such a way that Israel is actually in danger. Highly implausible that Iran would open nuclear fire just like that if they had the nukes. Gem fr (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Which they? --Jayron32 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
good question ;-) Gem fr (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Anton 81.131.40.58 -- Iran considers the mere existence of Israel an affront to itself, and has no compunction about killing Jews in Argentina, or funding Hezbollah to kill Jews elsewhere, but on the other hand the Iranian leadership is highly-protective of its own power, and is not likely to indulge in reckless or extremely risky strategies which could backfire on itself. Any attack on Israel with WMDs could be met with so-called "Samson Option" retaliation... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, one must be careful to consider who in Iran is doing those things, and also not to conflate the State of Israel with Jewish People. Those are not the same thing. --Jayron32 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Argentinean Jews were not Israelis. But in any case, the Iranian regime leadership, though it's morally vile and repugnant, is also stable and self-protective, and not likely to commit reckless gestures which could end up destabilizing its own regime. The nuclear power to really be worried about is Pakistan, which has an inherently unstable leadership -- on any given day, there's little to prevent extreme radical fundamentalists from ascending to political power, or to prevent the pro-terrorist irredentists now in charge of the Pakistani military and ISI from being replaced by more reckless pro-terrorist irredentists. Pakistan is more likely to be the cause of a nuclear incident than Iran (even if Iran had nukes at the moment, which seems unlikely). AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That's the key thing; While there may be deep philosophical and political differences with the West, the leaders of these regimes are both sane and intelligent, and thus unlikely to be reckless. It is in the interest of the Western powers, and the Western media, to characterize them as crazy and unstable, but they're not. It's hard to get and maintain power in a large, pluralistic society unless one is intelligent enough to understand how to preserve that power, and recklessly attacking Israel with nuclear weapons is unlikely to help one do that. Now, saying that one would do so, or at least toeing that line, is a good way to gin up one's own base, but there's a difference between saying those things and actually doing them. The calculus of a modern, unprovoked, nuclear attack does not really work out well. --Jayron32 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I would not use those words. However, I would admit that the Iranian leadership, though it has insanely grandiose ultimate fantasy goals, is highly self-protective of what it has already gained in the present, and clear-eyed about how reckless actions or adventurism could risk such attainments. As for Pakistan, there seems to be a significant element of pure blind luck that its nuclear weapons haven't so far come under the control of people whose fanaticism or impulsiveness outweighs their pragmatism, and I have very little confidence that the Pakistani system (such as it is) will prevent such people from gaining control of its nuclear arsenal in future... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Kindly provide a link to the article relating to the killing of the Argentinian Jewish folk, as this is the first I have heard of this. Also thank you for all of the other valuable comments. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC) moved here from the wrong section. --Jayron32 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He's referring to the AMIA bombing 25 years ago. --Jayron32 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    For which, as I understand it, no clear responsibility has been established. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, the Argentinian Justice found it clear enough to indict a former head of the State, so, I think it is safe to say the official judicial truth of Argentina is, Iran did the bombing (But you might be unconvinced...) Gem fr (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Stephan_Schulz -- There's never been a single dramatic "smoking gun" revelation (as far as I understand it), but the fetid stench of Iranian regime involvement has been steadily thickening over the years, culminating in the highly conveniently-timed death of Alberto Nisman, so that by now the burden of proof is really on those who would claim that there was no Hezbollah or Iranian regime involvement in the bombing (not on those who hold the opposite position)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Falsifying lettersEdit

Does anyone have a special font that is sometimes used so that a P cannot be falsified into an R?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Not quite what you're looking for, but you could simply use the Greek alphabet, where Π/π is not easily changed to Ρ/ρ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That's clearly not a good choice. Two letters of our alphabet (F and Q) are derived from Greek letters exclusive to old forms of Greek. And 3 Greek letters (iota, sigma, upsilon) have more than one Latin letter derived from; these are I/J for iota, S/Z for sigma, and U/V/W/Y for upsilon. Plus, the general question here is to make sure every letter is written so that no letter can be falsified into another; that is, you can't falsify P into B or R and you can't falsify C into O, G, or Q. Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The question is imprecise, in that it is unclear what amount of manipulation is allowed. The P/R distinction seems to suggest that adding extra strokes is allowed. A more mathematical mind would ask if one letter is a proper subregion of another, so that just by adding ink it can be made into the other one. In either case, something like Phosphor or any other outline font is pretty much unfakeable. And Zapfino has different embellishments for otherwise similar letters, so fakes would noticeable if someone checks carefully. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinese has a whole special set of numeral characters where it's not easy to change any one into another by adding marks or lines, as explained on the Chinese numerals article, but it's probably not too practical for a whole alphabet. However, in some specialized typefaces, such as Umbra, you couldn't transform a "P" into an "R" just by adding further black marks to the black that's already on the page.... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

See FE-Schrift. Found that by following some links from another refdesk question just a few days ago. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That answer makes much more sense. The "P" in that font has a small serif on the upper left corner that can be used to keep it from being falsified into an R or a B. Georgia guy (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

How about writing it in lower case?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

In many handwritings, a lower case d is just an a with a higher stem, a j is just an i with a descender, and an m is just an n with an extra arc. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out what problem the OP is trying to solve. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how FE-Schrift helps much unless the reader has also been given a proper R and B that they can trust and to check text against. Adding a slash to convert a FE-Schrift P into an R will absolutely fool nearly everyone not explicitly looking for a forgery and armed with details about what to look for. So what exactly is the level of danger we're trying to avoid and what level of trouble/expense are we willing to incur to avoid it? Matt Deres (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think "P" is a "proper subregion" of "R". I never heard of "proper subregion" before, but that would seem to make sense. (Except in FE-Schrift.) Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Re:Baseball Bugs--the OP is a devout Catholic with a sense of humor who wants to erect a sign on their lawn that says "Papist." Temerarius (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminds me of the website for those seeking therapy: therapist.com. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

When did she live?Edit

The article of Vincenza Matilde Testaferrata has not dates of birth or death. I have not been able to find one. Surely it must be documented because she was a noble. Is it known at least when she died? Thanks,--2.248.48.118 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The article has the notation "fl. 1778" which stands for Floruit, which is usually used in cases where a person's exact birth/death dates are not known. --Jayron32 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it was just not known by the writer of the article, because it was not mentioned in the digitalized sources for the article (the source only mention her in regard to her office, which she left in 1778), but as late as the 18th-century seem much to late for the dates of a person of the nobility (who always had genealogical documents) to be unknown. --2.248.48.118 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if willing to look through genealogy records, that info can probably be found, but those records may not be available online, and I don't feel like flying to Malta right now to pour through the archives. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
And they probably wouldn't appreciate anyone pouring something through their archives. Poring might be OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Please take sympathy on poor old me, as I swear I don't make such mistakes on porpoise. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
On purpose or not, it was good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 21Edit

French microhistorian?Edit

I can't for the life of me put my finger on it—and I'm hoping that I'll recognise the name when I see it!—but can anyone remind me of the French historian (contemporary, or near so) who wrote the history of (I think) Paris in the 19th-c. through an examination of one ordinary man's life? (Apologies for a somewhat convoluted question!) Cheers, 94.11.107.111 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

is it a quite recent best seller? If so, Lorànt Deutsch comes to mind. If not, you may check https://www.decitre.fr/rechercher/result?q=la+vie+quotidienne+paris and https://www.decitre.fr/rechercher/result?q=histoire+de+paris Gem fr (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

LemonnierEdit

Who is Lemonnier in this picture from 1873 at the French Consulate at Honolulu? Sourcing organization told me they don’t know. KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not notable enough to have a WP article (neither on fr:) . Gem fr (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Cryptogram in Rewards and FairiesEdit

In Something of Myself Rudyard Kipling wrote that he "even slipped in a cryptogram, whose key I regret I must have utterly forgotten" into Rewards and Fairies.[1] Has anyone found the cryptogram and solved it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Kipling, Rudyard (1991). "The Very-Own House". In Thomas Pinney (ed.). Something of Myself and other Autobiographical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 111. ISBN 052140584X.

September 22Edit

Lloyd George and the Welsh Shepherd of DartmoorEdit

In Davies, Alfred T. (1948). "Our First Meeting". The Lloyd George I Knew. London: Henry E. Walter. p. 21. we read "Some of my readers may perhaps be old enough to recall the incident of the old Welsh shepherd at Dartmoor, and the part played by Ll.G. in that connection". I am far too young to recall the incident, so I'm asking here. DuncanHill (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ahah! I've found him, one David Davies. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The message there seems to be that the pattern of the crimes must be considered, rather than just considering each crime in isolation. Three strikes laws are an attempt at this, but can take away the ability to use common sense in applying the law. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  Resolved

SinisterLefty (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)