Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 14

9/11 what-if: Could the air defense have saved the South Tower?

In the early stages of the September 11 attacks, the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11 led to two F-15 jets being dispatched from Otis Air National Guard Base. But they were airborne only at 8:53, seven minutes after the flight had already crashed into the North Tower. Not knowing that United Airlines Flight 175 also had been hijacked and not knowing what to do now, the F-15 flew elsewhere and consumed most of their fuel before landing again without having taken action. However, what if their commander would have had a sudden inspiration "The terrorists flew the machine into the North Tower - maybe the next target of their accomplices is the South Tower. Fly there immediately and take action to protect it!" The base is some 193m/310km away from 9/11, and they would have had some 9 minutes time to go there. As of maximum speed, the F-15 could have achieved that - but probably not without running out of fuel. Would they have had any chance? Maybe if the chain of information and command on the ground had been more effective and the planes would have taken off 5 or 10 minutes earlier? --KnightMove (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a reference desk. As clearly stated at the top of this page, we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway my question directly refers to capabilities of the F-15 jets, for which I was hoping somebody could give competent analysis. Well, I still hope that, and if not, then not. --KnightMove (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Our article on the F-15E gives its combat range as 687 nmi (791 mi, 1,272 km). The distance between the air base and the NYC WTC is less than 200 miles.  --Lambiam 00:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Masih Alinejad a Muslim?

Well this is not my question but a content deletion summary seem to doubt so. So, is Masih Alinejad a Muslim? or Whether she considers herself to be a Muslim?

Bookku (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

In Pakistan, "Masih" as a surname is a dead giveaway that someone is a Christian. I don't know if this applies to "Masih" as a first name in Iran... AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't assign religion to individuals based on their surname. Unless we have a source indicating that Alinejad herself says she is a follower of any particular faith, we aren't going to say one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The user is not assigning religion in the article. But one user assumed her to be Muslim and added her opinion to another article of Islamic Feminism , while other user seem to doubt her Muslimness. Idk what are prevailing WP policies in this respect.

Even before considering policies which can be done on the article talk page; 'is any info on her religion available in public domain?' is the question before this forum. Bookku (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP article says she is born Masoumeh Alinejad-Ghomikolayi . Masih is just pen name or due to religious reasons does not seem to be clear. Bookku (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

In Alinejad's book The Wind in My Hair, she quotes her father as lamenting, "How can I show my face at the mosque, where everyone knows my daughter is divorced but living in Tehran by herself?"^[1] This implies she was raised as a Muslim. Elsewhere in the book she relates how she got her unusual nickname, after a conversation with a new member of a book club she started:

Your name, Massy, should really be Masih, as in Messiah, or Jesus, as the Westerners say." "I'm not Christian," I said, confused. I hadn't expected him to lecture me about my name. "You don't have to be Christian to be a Masih."^[2]

Later, showing an application letter to a member of the editorial board of Hambastegi, the following dialogue unfolds:

"Your application letter says your name is Masih. The Messiah? Are you Christian?" he asked hesitatingly. "My name is Masoumeh, and I'm a Muslim." "I thought Masih was a man's name. So, did you pick that name for yourself or was it your father?" "My fiancé gave me that name. ...".

Of course, this does not establish that she currently self-identifies a a Muslim.  --Lambiam 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is helpful for further discussion @ article t/p. Many thanks @Lambiam

Bookku (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

20 July plot

In Kolbe there are six awards. Can you use them and his ranks in order to find the real-life character? Thank you very much.

Nope… because fictional characters are not real-life people. The character was likely completely made up. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Kolbe was a real-life character. You can search in all the sources about the plot, as "Sergeant Kolbe", "Feldwebel Kolbe", or "Oberfeldwebel Kolbe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.38.117 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

However, there is no reason to assume that any of the military awards ascribed on the fansite to the movie character were actually awarded to the historical person on whom the character is based. Surely, if the contributor based this on military records to which they had access, they would have included his given names, like was done for Stauffenberg ("Claus Philipp Maria Justinian Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg"^[3]) and most others portrayed in the film.  --Lambiam 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Then can you find his full name, military career, dates of birth and death in other ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.200.49 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Contrarily to with the main character ( see link (...)Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg above), they (the site) are not including the Note: "He is a fictional portrayal of the real.. Feldwebel Kolbe." Before you ask, checking "all" other available references to Feldwebel Kolbe at Wolf Lair, it's remarkable that a source for the account about the encounter does not seem to have ever been precisely attributed. This is leaving it to infer that a stereotype could have been purely developped for the narrative even long before it was to become illustrated in fiction. We now would need to test a lot of different rank-name combinations, in order to arrive - but where? --Askedonty (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You have now asked this over and over again (29 October 2022, 1 December 2022, 24 December 2022, 6 January 2023). If the answer could be found, it would have been given by now. One should think that the authors of the multiple books that have been written about the failed plot have also researched this; since they all identify the character only by his rank and surname, they must have come up empty-handed. I wonder though what the original source is of the detailed story. The oldest version I have found is from 1967, in which the author writes, "Bei der nächsten Sperre verweigerte der wachhabende Oberfeldwebel Kolbe die Durchfahrt."^[4] How did the author even know that Stauffenberg had a problem when leaving? (Due to the limitations of snippet view, I can't see if the book identifies any sources.)  --Lambiam 00:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There's this one, comes as a concrete paywall. --Askedonty (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Page 86 has "[Bl. 9] An Außenwache »Süd« STAUFFENBERG erneut angehalten. Er begab sich daraufhin zum Wachhabenden, Feldwebel Kolbe, dem er erklärte, unbedingt sofort zum Flughafen zu müssen." Kolbe is ranked as Oberfeldwebel in the index.^[5] The abbreviation "Bl. 9" presumably means Blatt 9 ("Sheet 9), referring to some source document.  --Lambiam 02:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In view of the title of the book, we can assume that the document was a report that Kaltenbrunner, who had been tasked of finding out who the plotters were, sent to Bormann and Hitler. Perhaps the passage quoted above comes straight from that document.  --Lambiam 01:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Zorro (TV series 1957)

There are Spanish Royal Army's captains in 1820's Spanish California. Can you discover what their awards are: Garcia (ending of episode 30, a silver croix if I recall), Monastario (episodes 1-13), and Toledano (episodes 24-27). Thank you very much.

• Um… Unless the series was set before the year 1821, they would not have been Royal Spanish Army officers, but Mexican Army. Mexico (which included California) was independent from Spain after 1821. Although I suppose they might have continued to wear Spanish decorations after independence. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Please don't expect historical accuracy from a TV series for medals - or anything else for that matter. It is always possible that someone did research these things but it is just as likely that they used what was at hand in the prop department. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if a fictional series, van you search for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.217.68 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That series was set in 1820, when the Spanish still ruled Alta California. Mexican rule began in April, 1822. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Only just last year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I heard that we had a “crisis on the southern border”… but I didn’t think it was that bad! Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, can you help me to find them? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.89.69 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you find something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.137.76 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The only person in history who was free from all human weakness

In Voltaire's History of Charles XII (1731), he allegedly wrote that Charles was:

• The only person in history who was free from all human weakness.

In trying to get some handle on what he could have meant by such an extraordinary claim, I've searched high and low for any discussion of it, to no avail. I've searched the online English translation for any words that might fit, but no go. It rates zero mention @ Wikiquote.

Yet it appears in The Oxford Dictionary of Biographical Quotations, A Dictionary of Military Quotations etc. I presume they check their sources.

Can anyone confirm whether it's an accurate quote, or if not, where it came from? Thanks, Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a fully accurate quote, but not far off. What Voltaire wrote in his Charles XII was C'est peut-être le seul de tous les hommes, et jusqu'ici le seul de tous les rois, qui ait vécu sans faiblesse; il a porté toutes les vertus des héros à un excès où elles sont aussi dangereuses que les vices opposés. ("He is perhaps the only one of all men, and up to now the only one of all kings, who has lived without weakness; he carried all the virtues of heroes to an excess where they were as dangerous as the opposite vices.") Source: [6]. You are of course free to disagree with that assessment. You can read Voltaire's judgement on him at greater length and in English here. --Antiquary (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Go to the top of the class for a superb response. Thanks, Antiquary. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Slight quibble with the translation of the second sentence, which sounds a bit awkward to me. Translation is an art, of course, and a trade-off between various competing ideals; in the following, I've traded off some literal translation for a smoother overall flow, which, I hope, enhances meaning of the whole:

"He incorporated all the virtues of the Hero to a fault, to the point where such excess is just as dangerous as the opposing vices."

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Waldo

According to our article Waldo (given name) there do not appear to have been any Waldos of note between Waldo of Reichenau who died in 814, and Waldo Colburn, born in 1824. Since them it seems to have established itself as a quintessentially American name, making its way into literature, film, and even rock music. What prompted its resurgence? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but don't forget the superb Heinlein short, Waldo. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A little more germane to the question, but purely speculative: I wonder if it could have to do with the Waldensian church founded by Peter Waldo, a proto-Protestant denomination with some American presence (there's even a town of Valdese, North Carolina). --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

According to his article, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) chose to go by his middle name (which derived from his father's great-grandmother Rebecca Waldo); he also used the name for two of his children. I don't know enough about Emerson (or America) to judge his notability at any particular date, but he is notable enough now to be the first Waldo that sprang to my mind. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Somebody's gotta say it:  "Where's Waldo between 814 and 1824?" 136.56.52.157 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ralph Waldo Emerson was indeed very famous in his time and highly respected as one of the founders of a national American literary and philosophical tradition (see Transcendentalism). It's very likely that he is responsible for reviving the name's popularity. It was an American tradition in the 19th century - and into the early decades of the 20th century - to name children after "great men", hence the popularity of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Lincoln as first names. This also applies to "Emerson" as a given name. Xuxl (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's embarrassing. I completely failed to think of RWE, even though he's sort of one of my heroes and I suspect many of my views derive from the Transcendentalists in one way or another. Yes, that sounds more likely than the Waldensians, who have some presence in this country but were never really that visible; I don't know what fraction of Americans really have even heard of them. --Trovatore (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Waldo P. Johnson born 1817 was the earliest I could find not already noted. It appears the name was mostly a surname prior to the early 19th century. --Jayron32 19:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Whenever I hear the name Waldo, my mind jumps to Under Milk Wood. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Women as drag queens

Hello! Since 1972 I have quite a bit of experience on the subject of drag and drag queens. Have been following Wikipedia info about the subject(s) since 2008. I am still confused about some of the things I've seen in recent years. Here are some questions:

1. What is meant by the idiom women who are drag queens?
2. What is the difference between a wonderfully flamboyant, heavily made up, extravagant and entertaining woman and a woman who is a drag queen?
3. Is a women who is in a drag queen usually disguised as a drag queen with her biological gender a secret?
4. How do we identify a woman as a drag queen?
5. How do we identify, or do we, identify a drag queen as a woman?
6. Is a woman a drag queen only if she calls herself such?

Sincerely confused but far from antagonistic, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Related side question - are there female performers who do male drag (Dressing as, and impersonating male singers for example)? Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes; drag kings. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Housekeeping: Serge, I hope you don't mind, I've changed your bullet icons to numbers, so respondents can reply to individual items if they choose; feel free to revert if you don't approve. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

By the numbers; these are mostly requests for clarification of the questions:

• 1. can you give the source for that? Are you referring to the WP article Drag queen?

Yes ("usually male") and at Female queen (drag) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• 2. Can you clarify: made up how, as a man, or over-the-top as a woman?

Heavily made up, flamboyant flirtatious woman, my favorite kind (I'm not sure of the idiom over the top) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• 3. Can you rephrase, not sure I understand; there seems to be an extra or a missing word in there. Are you talking about stealth?

Sorry, corrected now. It was a typo. I make a lot of them due to worsening eyesight. Are we expected to keep her biological gender a secret for her to fit in, or is her biological gender usually not a secret? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• 4. Are you talking about a faux queen?

See 1. I mean criteria. What are the criteria for such identification of a woman as a drag queen? Your reply at 6 might suffice here as well as for 5. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• 5. Is this different than #4, and if so, how?

Yes, different. What (other than biology) are the criteria for such identification of a drag queen as a woman? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• 6. That does raise the question of intent, which I personally think is a factor in determining drag. I would say yes. Put another way, can you imagine a situation where someone says to a woman, "You look like a drag queen," and the wide variety of responses one might get, depending on how the woman identified herself?

Thank you for your opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting a little confusing with interpolated responses in my message above, but here are some further responses:

• 1. I can't find the expression women who are drag queens there, but from your quoted "usually male", I see what you mean, now. Since the counterpart to drag queen is drag king, you're asking (I think) "Who are the women drag queens"? (If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.) I suppose technically, since we don't have the term, drag person (or maybe, drag monarch ?) that covers drag queens and drag kings, that sentence in the article is slightly problematic. But, as long as we consider faux queen a subset of "drag queen" (which I think is a fair assumption), then the first sentence, including the usually male is correct; it just requires that faux queen be covered somewhere in the details of the article (as the WP:LEAD only covers the most important points, and the WP:LEADSENTENCE even more so), and since the #Terminology section does cover the subtleties of faux queens or bioqueens, I think all the i's are dotted, and the lead sentence is accurate.

Will respond to other points as I can, and hopefully, you'll get other responses as well. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• 2. The term over the top means "highly exaggerated", and in this context, "..to the point of intentional bad taste". In that case, if you mean a woman made up in a highly exaggerated fashion, I'd say it would depend, like #6, on their intent; is it an intentional performance with a wink, intending to mimic a drag queen, or is it simply just a histrionic personality expressing their usual flamboyance? If the latter, then neither a drag queen, nor a faux queen. Basically, you'd have to know them well or ask them, to be sure. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! We are indeed having a bit of trouble communicating in two details. I do not know what a "faux queen" is nor do I (at my age) wish to learn any more new such terms. The term is redirected to an article on women as drag queens. And I do not appreciate some of your disparaging comments on heavily made up, extravagant, flamboyant women. Having worked and played with many such wonderful women, I know that at least they don't deserve any such put-downs. None of them are/were histrionic. "Bad taste" is a matter of environment, context & opinion, not an determinable fact. Frankly. I'm surprised at those wordings in your replies, which I otherwise find helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. I linked faux queen for you, so that you could follow up if you wished. I'm a bit nonplussed about your characterizing my reply as "disparaging", as there was no such intention; I merely copied the "flamboyant, heavily made up, extravagant" from your OP, and I was using it purely descriptively with no judgment attached, as I assume you were. If there's anything that's characteristic of drag queens (of any sex), "histrionic" and campy "bad taste" would certainly be two of them; they go with the territory, and there's no judgment involved there, either. However, I won't overstay my welcome, so at this point I'm content to let this thread go, and hope that you receive some feedback that will be more to your liking. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I expected an apology but only received more insults toward drag queens in general, and toward many women whether or not they are to be considered drag queens. You and I obviously know and have worked with very different people of either category, though indeed some drag queens as people are histrionic and show bad taste. There acts very often are, but not the people. No judgement involved? That claim, in plain English, contradicts what you wrote. I must continue to object to it. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Serge, I think you are misunderstanding Mathglot's phrasing. I see no insults directed at drag queens as people, only colorful description of their performances. And I have performed as a female impersonator and worked alongside many drag queens (male and female, including transgender individuals). As for "women as drag queens", yes they exist. Terms for them include bio queen, faux queen, and fifi (female impersonating a female impersonator), among others. Faux queens are distinguished from ordinary women who dress and act in an extravagant manner by the fact that faux queens are performers. It gets a little harder to distinguish faux queens from mainstream female performers, but faux queens generally perform only in queer spaces.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

OK I learned English when I was a toddler and have taught the language for many years. The words "histrionic" and "bad taste" are offensive, in my opinion, when describing (all) drag queens and especially all women who are heavily made up and flamboyant and extravagant. I believe I have a right to my opinion. It's similar to your right to be very generous toward someone who uses such words to describe you. You not just your act, and many female friends of mine, living and dead. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the West Bank and International Laws

In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel was able to annex 60% of the areas allotted to the Arabs in the UN Partition Plan. This outcome has since been accepted by the international community. Why do the international community treat the Green Line as the international borders between Israel and Palestine and consequently regard Israel's occupation of the West Bank as illegal? Many countries still refuse to recognize the State of Palestine and yet even they seem to agree that Israel is violating international laws in regard to the occupation of and settlements in the West Bank. Why did the international community readily recognize Israel's conquests in 1948 but not the ones in 1967? Especially when Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was never recognized and so this territory did not belong to any country after the end of Mandatory Palestine in 1948. StellarHalo (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Whew, I assume you realize very well what a controversial topic the whole issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, including being listed under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Given that hundreds of books and thousands of scholarly articles have been published about this, may I ask you to narrow your question to something more specific? This subject is so broad, it's hard to know where to begin, and is also a honeypot for trolling and bad-faith editing, so to the extent that you can limit the scope, the better, imho. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The questions I would like an answer to are in bold. Also, the Green Line was never meant to be a permanent border. Why do the international community treat it just like they do a normal international border? StellarHalo (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

[Personal opinion] See De facto and De jure. Many participants in the international community (and we're talking about governments, since individuals like you and I have no significant power in such situations) may not agree with the current situation, but they either cannot or dare not try to interfere, because their primary obligation is to pursue the safety and wellbeing of their own citizens, and a secondary one is to promote these for other people in the world. Because of complexly intermeshing international alliances, antagonisms and sentiments, interference from third parties carries a significant risk of at best making the ongoing local conflict worse, and at worst setting off World War III. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

StellarHalo -- the short answer is that in 1947 and 1948 the Arabs vehemently and violently rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan, starting a war to deny the Jews any control over any territory at all, so that it would be legally inconsistent, not to mention brazenly hypocritical, to insist on the sanctity of the 1947 partition plan lines now (though that hasn't stopped some). The 1947 partition plan lines were very deliberately devised to be militarily indefensible, and could only come into effect with mutual agreement of the parties, since an economic union was an integral part of the plan. There's also a very noticeable tendency of the Arabs to vehemently reject any solution which doesn't give them 100% of their demands, but later on when their situation has worsened, they look back nostalgically at what they earlier rejected. In 1947-48 they rejected the partition plan lines, but after the 1949 armistice lines were determined, the 1947 partition plan lines started looking better in retrospect. From 1949-1967 they rejected the legitimacy of the armistice lines, but after the 1967 six-day war, the 1949 armistice lines started looking better in retrospect. In the 1990s any two-state solution would have involved fairly open borders, while any 21st-century two-state solution will certainly involve closed and fortified borders etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Like the mother in the tale of the Judgement of Solomon, the Arabs vehemently rejected the proposed partition. Unlike the mother in the tale, they did not present the counteroffer of conceding the whole to the other party.  --Lambiam 12:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The evolving positions of the Arab and other Muslim countries are not surprising. What I don't understand is the position of the international community as a whole especially the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. On what legal basis do they assert that the West Bank is under illegal occupation by Israel? Have they ever engaged with the legal arguments of the Israeli government asserting that the West Bank is in fact a disputed territory as outlined in the article Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967? StellarHalo (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

StellarHalo, I posed your question to OpenAi's chatbot, and here is their response:

The UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice assert that the West Bank is under illegal occupation by Israel on the basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Israel's establishment of settlements in the West Bank is considered a violation of this provision. Additionally, the UN Security Council has passed numerous resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it occupied in the 1967 war, and affirmed that Israel's presence in the territories is in violation of international law.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a little discussion of general principles at Wikipedia article Right of conquest. The banning of the right of conquest did not apply to the immediate post-WW2 period, when the Soviet Union redrew borders and annexed with gusto in Eastern Europe, but after the 1940s it was held to be sacrosanct, even if sometimes applied selectively (Morocco was considered a violator in Western Sahara, but somehow China is exempt for Tibet, etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Power. The difference is power. Both militarily and organizationally. Morocco has virtually no power, China has a massive military and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In 1951 and 1959, Taiwan (the ROC) held the "China" security council seat (though it was also opposed to Tibetan independence), and mainland China (the PRC) had a lot of soldiers, but was not really a major world military power (it had no nuclear weapons yet)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 15

First glass-covered building

On January 15 we have:

1936 – The first building to be completely covered in glass, built for the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, is completed in Toledo, Ohio.

and on Toledo, Ohio:

On January 15, 1936, the first building to be completely covered in glass was constructed in Toledo. It was a building for the Owens-Illinois Glass Company and marked a milestone in architectural design representative of the International style of architecture, which was at that time becoming increasingly popular in the US.

(O-I Glass, to which Owens-Illinois redirects, is silent on the matter.)

Surely the The Crystal Palace was the first building to be completely covered in glass? Is something different meant?

Either way, can we source a freely-usable image of the Toledo building?

References

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Britain didn't have greenhouses before the Crystal Palace? If I'm not mistaken the United Nations slab was the first building over 500 feet tall with that much glass but the very short sides aren't glass. The nearby Lever House (1950-52) was a box over 300 feet tall with all sides being glass. By the early 70s the tallest building in the world was a glass box (or 9 glass square prisms conjoined). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That claim is overly broad and easily disproven with the Crystal Palace and its precursors. It should be modified or removed. First office building maybe, Lever House was the most influential model for a glass-covered office building, but there were others leading ip to it. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the 1825 Nash Conservatory at Kew Gardens is said to be the world's oldest surviving fully-glazed building, according to this article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

But, clearly, "fully" here is relative. The Nash Conservatory has structural elements between the windows, making up something like 25% of the wall surface. So do other such buildings, generally; but the non-glass elements can be smaller and less prominent. I think we may only be talking about how much smaller and less prominent they are. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• The iron law of superlatives is "If you see something claiming to be a superlative (first, biggest, most, etc.), it is always wrong." While exceptions can be found, they are rare enough that if take the number of true superlative claims, and divide it by the number of such claims that are wrong, it is so close to zero as to make no difference. --Jayron32 19:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Version of Giselle performed in London in 1952

Good evening.

I really appreciate the little book of Leo Kersley and Janet Sincler (his wife, I think) entitled "A dictionary of ballet Terms", published in London by Adam and Charles Black, in 1952, reprint with corrections in 1953. The author gives examples of traditional dance steps in classical dance variations. Thus for the entry "sissonne", he quotes the 2nd solo of the peasant pas de deux from the ballet Giselle where the male dancer performs sissonnes, but without indicating the author of the choreography. There have been many versions of Giselle! Can you find me the one that was in use in London, at Sadler's Wells Theater Ballet (Birmingham Royal Ballet ?) at that time?

Thank you already and happy new year 2023! Égoïté (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, happy new year to you. The Sadler S Wells Ballet A History And Appreciation says that the company's choreographer in 1952 was Frederick Ashton. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks ! really ! Égoïté (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Name for a period when writing is lost? (vs Prehistory/History)

Prehistory becomes History when writing starts. However, Greek History took a break during the Greek Dark Ages, when written records ceased for centuries until a new writing emerged. Such unwritten period seems unlike Prehistory or History proper. (Or Protohistory, for that matter.)

• Q1: Is there a technical name for such period when writing is lost?
• Q2: Did a similar loss happen to another culture?

Thanks for reading, 77.147.79.62 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dark Ages. I think you have answered your own question. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Linear B was a rather ambiguous script used for very limited purposes (palace bureaucratic inventorying) and doesn't create much meaningful "history". But writing was lost in parts of Anatolia with the collapse of the Hittite empire, and possibly in the Indus valley (depending on whether the Harappan script was a real writing system). AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In the British Isles at least, the art of writing was not lost, just the Latin script. The Celtic peoples used Ogham and the Germanic settlers had Anglo-Saxon runes before contact with Christendom was reestablished in the 8th century. These scripts have only survived in stone inscriptions; presumably it would have been a lot easier to carve into wood, which of course, has not lasted. Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There's not a single instance on the internet of the bigram "civilizational dysgraphia" (well, before now), but that's my nomination, if there isn't already something that describes it. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT suggested to use the term "gap period" or "historical gap".  --Lambiam 19:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

For another example, see Byzantine Dark Ages, almost two millenia after the Greek Dark Ages.  --Lambiam 19:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Higher learning and literary authorship suffered, but there was no loss of the Greek alphabet. AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

True, but per Dark Ages (historiography)#Modern scholarly use, calls the Byzantine Dark Ages "the period from the earliest Muslim conquests to about 800,[44] because there are no extant historical texts in Greek from this period," (bold mine). --Jayron32 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

But in that context, "historical texts" refers to works of actual historiography. Other forms of literature, such as theological works, did continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 17

Case Closed: The Time-Bombed Skyscraper

This household is modeled after Nymphenburg Palace in Munich. Can you help me to find even the models for these buildings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.235.244 (talk • contribs)

• 2 looks like any of several Federal Style or Colonial Revival churches that were built across America for much of the 1800s and 1900s, for example First Baptist Church, Natchez, Mississippi or First Methodist Church, Meriden, Connecticut or Skillman Church of Christ, Dallas, Texas. These are just representative examples, there's probably hundreds of church (and also civic buildings like city halls) that all look roughly like that. --Jayron32 15:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• 6 looks vaguely like Château des Tourelles [7] in Pornichet in France, (which is different from the one that has a wikipedia article in English), that is now a hotel and spa. But that particular building is fairly recent and basically a pastiche of Renaissance-style castles, which is exactly what the one in the picture looks like as well, only bigger. #7 is a type of French manoir [8] in the 19th century style, of which there are literally thousands accross the country. There's nothing particularly distinctive about the one in the picture. Xuxl (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Those in #1 are Johnston-Felton-Hay House and Natchez Glen Auburn. Please, can you search even for the others? Thank you very much.

Euphemism in Gaudy Night

In Dorothy L. Sayers' Gaudy Night, Harriet Vane muses on the mundaneness of college life, thinking: "The most frightful thing that was ever likely to happen was that an undergraduate should 'take the wrong turning'." (ch 3, inner quotes in original) This comes across as a stock phrase, presumably with a well-understood meaning at the time (1935). Is this correct, and does it refer (as I guess) to sexual orientation? This would chime with other themes in the book, but it might equally mean communism, as far as I can see. It is compared with petty pilfering as another (major) disruptive event. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain it's a more general statement on misbehavior/sin etc. A google search turns up several references to The Unquiet Grave (book), written in 1944, which has the aphorism "Life is a maze in which we take the wrong turning before we have learnt to walk." which seems to be taken as a reference to original sin; i.e. we are born into misbehavior. Other than the plain meaning of "to take the wrong path" or "to turn off of the correct route", the metaphorical one seems to be "to misbehave". --Jayron32 15:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd always assumed it meant go over to Rome. It's the sort of thing that did worry college authorities in the 20s and 30s. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

One academic agrees with you, see Conversion in the British Detective Novel. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably partly influenced by Bible verse Matthew 7:13... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

the ultimate value of a ranch

How many years does it take to have a farm or other agricultural exploitations to take the value they would have after thirteen years of overexploitation? Is it a sort "treasure-friendly booby trap" or a kind of stripped investment? Boutus Spinach Chlore (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The answer will depend on far too many variables to yield a quick answer. What is the climate? What resources were extracted from the area? Which nutrients are depleted? Can another resources be produced there? What is the cost of capital?DOR (HK) (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears you are using the word "ranch" in a way that most people use the word "farm." In common use, a ranch is used to raise livestock. A farm is used to grow crops and, often, raise livestock as well. In other words, a ranch does not commonly grow crops, which would deplete the soil. If it is correct that you are referring to crops and soil depletion, rotating crops is a well established and commonly used method to avoid soil depletion. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Georg Elser

Who were the eight people killed by his bomb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.200.213 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Seven of the eight, the ones who died at the scene, are named in the article titled Georg Elser, while one of the victims is unnamed, only noting that one of those initially only injured died later of their injuries. --Jayron32 19:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The article in the de:WP lists all victims, as reported in the news at that time. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

January 18

Australian article about democracy w/r/t death penalty

I'm trying to track down an article or opinion piece I read years ago by an Australian journo which opened with an anecdote about them interviewing an Australian politician - I think the anecdote itself was from the 80s or 90s, and I thought the politician was Paul Keating but including his name is not helping with google - and arguing with the politician, who claims that democracy or majority rule is not always the best on every issue. The politician supports this claim by saying that a huge majority of Australians support capital punishment (both politician and journo are left-wing), which the journo refuses to believe, only be told to look it up, which he later does and is surprised to find the politician is correct. (This is not true now but I'm sure it was 30 years ago.) That's the jumping off point for a longer article about whether majority belief in the unwashed masses is always "good" or whether a more "elite" administration is wiser on some issues. Anyway I doubt anyone will have better luck tracking that down, but you never know... Dr-ziego (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you know it's "not true now"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are you asking the OP that question, when it doesn't help in answering his request? Mind your own business. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It would have been quicker for Baseball Bugs to make a Google search than to type out his counter-question; he would easily have found Public Opinion: Australians Oppose Capital Punishment. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The OP made an unsubstantiated editorial comment. If someone doesn't like that line of discussion, the OP shouldn't have brought it up and others here should mind their own business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If the OP had not inserted that parenthetical remark, some smarty pants would have googled "australians capital punishment" and written that it is not true that a huge majority of Australians support capital punishment. The statement was not an "editorial comment" but a statement of fact, just like stating that Bob Hawke is no longer the prime minister.  --Lambiam 21:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinion polls are unimpeachable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This paradox is addressed in detail in Robert Dahl's famous book, A Preface to Democratic Theory: i.e. democracy lets people make decisions (in theory), but often the electorate is prejudiced and uninformed, so how do you ensure this does not lead to abuses? It was a widely discussed matter in political science in the second half of the 20th Century (I have no idea if this debate is still current). Xuxl (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair as well, it's been a matter that has been discussed for centuries before the twentieth century by political theorists, maybe since time immemorial. For example, it forms a major part of the political theory expounded by the writers of the The Federalist Papers in the late 18th century. Federalist No. 10 in particular deals with this exact paradox and how a well-designed government is to deal with such a paradox. Leviathan by Hobbes, written in the mid 17th century, also deals with the notion that granting "the people" too much power results in their own demise. The Republic by Plato also grapples with the matter, and now we're talking another several millennia back. --Jayron32 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Often the elected people are prejudiced, uninformed and incompetent, supporting other interests than those of the people whose votes they courted. Often the people in power work hard to keep the voters uninformed by telling half-truths or even outright lies while keeping information that is relevant for proper decision making inaccessible. Or they are populists and knowingly stoke prejudice with dishonest arguments to gain more power. It is by no means clear that truly letting the people make the decisions is any worse than the prevailing situation.  --Lambiam 21:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The underlying assumptions evident here include this: there is a better answer to some issues than the one that the largest number of people (or the majority, your choice) prefer. If this is to be taken at face value – and there is no reason it should be – then the best possible system would be an absolute dictatorship under an absolutely benevolent and wise ruler. Since there is almost certainly no such person, the next best would be a group of people with all those benevolent characteristics deciding things. That leads to the question o how large the group should be, which leads back to the most simple answer: democracy. And, if you don't like the death penalty but the majority do, perhaps you're not really a democratic person. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Votes do not a democracy make; it's important to note that most political theorists define democracy by the average person's access to power and information; in general the more say they have in the outcome of their own lives AND the more information they have about what the decision making process is like, the more democratic a society they live in. Lots of non-democratic countries vote on things, but if the people are not able to have the necessary access to information to allow them to vote intelligently, if they lack access to run as candidates themselves, etc; that's not very democratic. Lack of a government authority is also not very democratic. Anarchic societies are not particularly democratic as the average person is under threat from the people with the most guns, and not particularly able to be safe from those people. The Democracy Index is one way that democratic societies are quantified around the world, and their methodology is instructive here. They list 5 traits of a functioning democratic society: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, political culture; only the first of those is about access to voting. --Jayron32 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• The first name I thought of was Barry Jones, a very high-profile campaigner against capital punishment ever since 1967, when Ronald Ryan became the last person to be executed in Australia. Jones was also a minister in Paul Keating's government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Rommel

Can you find if he had known of his friend Rudolf Schmundt's injuried and death before his suicide two weeks later? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.217.34 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems improbable that he wouldn't, despite the relatively short interval of only two weeks between the two events. I do not know which first hand accounts exist besides that given by Ms Rommel to Charles F.Marshall, who wrote about it later. One recent biography of Rommel is implicitly asserting that, in October, Rommel knew that Schmundt was dead. Problem is that the same argument supported by the implicit assertion would also work if Schmundt had remained only incapacited. Review of this work by R. G. Reuth in the popular science de:Bild der Wissenschaft journal for example notes it as of easy reading and not intended to a public of specialists (Warum also nun ein weiteres Buch über Erwin Rommel?), which could possibly mean that extrapolations are tolerable. However, a lot is known about Rommel, for example from his letters to his wife. Furthermore it is well known that during his crucial final weeks he was still under medical surveillance and particularly his physician held an authoritative stance about him not traveling. According to accounts from such provenance, or otherwise, from friends, Rommel would have been informed about the fate of von Klüge as well as of Speidel for example (https://thejns.org/focus/view/journals/neurosurg-focus/41/1/article-pE8.xml). --Askedonty (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Size of True Spain

Spain is the 51st or 52nd largest country in the world depending on how Morocco's size is defined. But what if the country had only included "True Spain", which means Spain apart from Catalonia?? What countries would it end up smaller than?? (How many is what I want; the specific countries can be found using the Largest countries list.) Georgia guy (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I did the math but didn't need to. The area of Catalonia is ~12.4ksqm. Spain has a 11ksqm margin over the next country in the list. So at most, losing Catalonia would push Spain down at most two spots in the list. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Every single part of Spain has a separatist movement, albeit in varying degrees of strength. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ok? --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since when is Catalonia not part of Spain? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It used not to be, and a sizeable majority of its current population would like it not to be again. Perhaps you could look this up in some sort of online encyclopaedia, if such a thing existed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it's been part of Spain since Spain has existed as a state. Whether one considers the union of crowns (in the case of the Catholic Monarchs) to be the founding of the country of Spain, when they joined the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon into a single monarchy during the late 15th century, or whether it was the Spanish Constitution of 1812 which finally ended the separate Cortes of the constituent kingdoms of the Spanish Monarchy and established the single parliament for the whole nation, at no time was Catalonia its own state. Many centuries before "Spain" was a thing, there were several semi-autonomous feudal states, such as the nominally Frankish County of Barcelona, which was perhaps functionally independent, but that was several centuries before "Spain" meant anything at all. Which is not to say that there is not a position that Catalonia deserves to be an independent country, or that the Catalonian people are not a distinct and separate ethnic/national group than the Spanish people are, I take no position on that, but historically, Catalonia was always part of Spain as long as Spain has been Spain. "True Spain" is not a thing; Spain has always been a multiethnic and multilingual state (similar to Belgium and Switzerland and the UK for example). If one is going to "break out" the Catalonian people, there's no reason not to also break out the Galicians, Basque, Valencians, etc. "True Spain" without the Catalonians is no more meaningful than "True Switzerland" without the French Swiss, or "True Belgium" without the Flemish.--Jayron32 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I always wonder, before 1469 was the name Spain in use (as Germany was before there was a coherent strictly German state) and did it include Portugal? —Tamfang (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The earliest citation in the OED is from circa 1275. DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Spain as a name for a patch of dirt is distinct from Spain as a political entity, it should be noted. Italy was called Italy (or cognates thereof) for millennia before there was an actual political state called "Italy". Same here. Spain prior to there being an actual country called Spain was basically calque or cognate of Hispania, a term that existed since Roman times, to be fair. If we understand Spain in 1275 to mean what the Romans meant Hispania to mean; then it maybe also meant what became Portugal? Hispania referred to the entire Iberian peninsula, and in Roman times there was no particular distinction between Portugal and Spain, except in a very loose sense as the province of Lusitania, which didn't really have anything to do with Portugal except that part of Lusitania overlaps with part of what became Portugal. Hispania was still used for the whole Peninsula at the time; other provinces in Hispania included Tarraconensis and Baetica. Of course, by 1275, there was a Portugal, the Kingdom of Portugal having existed for a time by then, but it was not particularly distinct from the other Iberian kingdoms of that time period; which is to say that Portugal would have been considered one of the Reconquista-era petty kingdoms of Iberia, alongside places like the Kingdom of Leon and the Kingdom of Castile and the Kingdom of Galicia and the Kingdom of Aragon and so on. While the others would coalesce into Spain and (for the most part) lose their distinct cultural identities, at that time, there were a number of Ibero-Romance languages spoken on the peninsula, each likely centered on one of those kingdoms, and the kingdoms that "became" Spain later did not necessarily have more in common with each other than each had with Portugal. Which is all a long way of saying that I suspect (but cannot prove, alas) that when someone in the 13th century said "Spain" (or whatever the particular cognate of it was) it likely included the lands of Portugal as well at the time. --Jayron32 17:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

And of course, lest I forget, Spain did also (sort of) include Portugal for the period between 1580-1640. While modern historiography treats this as a "Spain + Portugal = the Iberian Union" sort of math, where Spain and Portugal retained their separate political identities within the Union, that belies the fact that the constituent parts of what we now call Spain also at that time retained their own separate political identities; at that time there was also a Cortes of Castile and a Cortes of Aragon alongside the Portuguese Cortes. Portugal was basically a co-equal part of said union alongside Castile and Aragon, it's just that only Portugal re-asserted its independence later, Castile and Aragon remained a union of crowns long enough to coalesce into a single state over time. --Jayron32 17:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Also also, to correct myself from earlier, I stated a wrong date for the end of the independent constituent parts of Spain (Castile and Aragon) as being in 1812; it was actually the Nueva Planta decrees which functionally did so; abolishing all functions of the Aragonese state and subsuming them within the Castilian state. I was just wrong on that; misremembered the time frame. --Jayron32 17:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) What makes you ask this irrelevant question?  --Lambiam 08:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity… is the term “True Spain” something the OP made up for this question… or is it used by sources? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  True Spain turns up basically bupkis in a Google Search. Even if one were to call it [Spain proper, THAT seems to always refer to European Spain or Iberian Spain, which is to say not including the overseas colonies in Asia, Africa, or the Americas, nor does it include any of Spain's non-Iberian lands (so not the Spanish Netherlands or Spanish-controlled Italy) but does seem to include Spain's closely associated islands (like the Balearic Islands). Under no definitions do I find any meaning of "true Spain" or "Spain Proper" or any similar phrase that refers to Spain without some subset of what is usually considered modern Spain. There are real separatist movements, but all of these involve lands and people that have been part of Spain from the foundation of the Spanish state (i.e. at least further back than the 15th century). --Jayron32 14:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Nitpicking:

  Olivenza is part of Spain since 1801, Ceuta since 1581 or 1640, depending what you consider Spain.

  They have "unionist" movements, rather than separatist, though.

  -- Error (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Error is correct, I stand corrected. --Soman (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Material assets

Please not I'm not asking for any legal advice nor am I requesting predictions. But now since Todd and Julie Chrisley started their prison sentences, what is going to happen to their material assets?2603:7000:8100:F444:2DB0:C9B4:5732:B036 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless some new informaton has emerged, the answer would be the same as the last time you asked it: We don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Chrisleys settled the tax evasion case with the Georgia Department of Revenue for $150,000, a pittance, so there is no specific reason to assume the (Federal) imprisonment sentence will have a significant impact on their assets.  --Lambiam 09:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

They stole tons of money to fund their lavish lifestyle. That includes their mansions, luxury cars, a boat, Rolex watches, designer clothes, etc.2603:7000:8100:F444:7444:B867:9392:A9CC (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• See here for the full story so far. There are separate trials for different matters. The trial that concluded was a criminal trial which was for fraud and tax evasion, which included a penalty for violating a law; this included a fine and a prison sentence. The matter of what to do with the assets is a matter for a civil trial, which has not occurred yet. In general, this would require the aggrieved parties (the people from whom they stole) to file a civil suit against them. --Jayron32 14:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, the Chrisleys stole from banks.2603:7000:8100:F444:2DB0:C9B4:5732:B036 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Then it would be up to the banks to file a civil suit to recover the lost money. --Jayron32 17:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

January 19

Goethe poem

This is from "Great Writings of Goethe" (1956) by Stephen Spender, p. 46. Any idea where to find the original in German? The translation below comes across as not very good.

    Reviewer (Goethe, 1776)
    Translated by Michael Hamburger

    There was a fellow dropped in for lunch,
    Didn't bother me much, I just let him munch
    Had the kind of meal I have every day
    The fellow gorged himself mightily
    And for dessert ate up what I'd stored
    But as soon as he'd left my larder cleared,
    The devil led him to my neighbor's, where
    After this fashion he discussed the fare:
    "The soup might have been more piquantly spiced,
    The roast more crisp, the wine better iced."
    A curse on that damnable knave, that evil-doer!
    Put the dog to sleep. He's a book reviewer.

Thanks. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:720 (talk) 09:15, 1 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Rezensent.  --Lambiam 09:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Michael Hamburger was a well respected translator and I don't think it's appropriate to describe any translation by him as "not very good". --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether it is appropriate to rate a translation as "not very good" should depend more on the quality of the translation than on the respect bestowed upon the translator. But rating a translation without knowing the original may not be a good idea.  --Lambiam 13:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually find the translation pretty good - the style of the original is a bit doggerel (not at all the elevated style you'd expect from Goethe in his more serious poems), and the translation matches that fairly well, as far as I can judge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:720 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

story of American States

When was the first Wisconsin reduced by its own preceeding governments? Was it trumblesOme of was it just history? Foster Vomabach (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. "reduced by its own preceeding governments" seems to be a meaningless phrase. Can you give more details of what you actually meant? --Jayron32 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I detect a whiff of troll scent.  --Lambiam 13:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• See: Wisconsin Territory, which discusses the border changes prior to Wisconsin becoming a State. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

January 20

Where can I find US presidential appointments?

The Library of Congress has an amazing archive of congressional proceedings, the record, the laws, the whole deal. But I'm struggling with finding executive branch documents, relating to appointments for positions. For example, all the sources say John Henry Kinkead was appointed governor of Alaska by Chester A. Arthur on July 4, 1884. I just ... want to see the document. As good as the government is at serving legislative documents, it doesn't seem nearly as good with executive documents. Does anyone know ... I don't even know how to begin searching for it. 'old presidential appointment documents' brings me to the Compilation of Presidential Documents but that only has results from 1993. I don't even know how I would begin searching or referencing this document, but it must exist, right? Or must have at some point? Anyway. Grasping for any help I can find here. Would very much like some primary sourcing, because the third parties did not keep good records.

But it's an official document (or transmission or statement, not sure what form it took), there has to be some record of it. The closest I came was when I found a reference in the 1893 Congressional Record to the appointment of James Sheakley, but that was a recess appointment, and I suspect that's the only reason it was communicated to the senate. I haven't checked others, but the frustration with finding more primary info on Kinkead led me here. --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oho, looks like what I might be looking for is the "Executive Journal"? Found a promising link at [9] so here's hoping. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Golbez. Have you considered asking from assistance from the professional librarians at the Alaska State Library? Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't yet, but this is going to be a general issue, not just Alaska. --Golbez (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Then please consider reaching out to other state libraries. I think that every state has one. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all executive orders are specific to some state.  --Lambiam 14:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No such appointment is found among a database of Arthur's presidential documents for the month of July 1884^[10] (nor any other records in this database^[11]).  --Lambiam 14:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Turns out he was nominated on June 27 and confirmed July 4. But again this shows how hard this stuff is to search for, and it's irksome. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Attributed, possibly/probably apocryphal

In relation to quotations:

• Attributed means some source has claimed the person said/wrote this
• Apocryphal means the same, except scholars seriously doubt the truth of the claim, but have not categorically ruled it out as false.

I've come across a sort of hybrid descriptor:

• Attributed, possibly/probably apocryphal.

I don't see the point of it. If a quote is attributed, that means we simply don't know whether it's true or not. Anyone is free to research it and either confirm it or disprove it. But in the absence of anyone casting doubt on it, how can it be said to be "possibly or probably apocryphal"?

For context, the place I found this usage was in Gyles Brandreth's Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations, 5th ed., 2015 Thanks for your thoughts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify what you need references for? It isn't quite clear. Do you need references for the definitions of the terms "attributed" and "apocryphal"? It would be helpful to us trying to find references for you if we had a little more information. --Jayron32 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not the only place; Brandreth's predecessor Ned Sherrin did likewise,^[12] and we see the same in Elizabeth Knowles' Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations.^[13] All quotes that are not taken directly from a published work or speech by (or an interview with) the alleged enunciator, but are reported by someone else, are "attributed", but in many cases there is no reason to question the correctness of the report. The very act of writing "perhaps apocryphal" means the author of the compendium of quotations casts aspersions on the authenticity – whether by following some earlier doubting Thomas or because they could not find a more precise ascription (such as to a specific document or event), telltale signs of made-up attributions. Or, as Einstein put it, "most things I have said I haven't". Sherrin explained his use as follows: A source note, usually including the specific date of the quotation, follows the author information. Quotations which are in general currency but which are not at present traceable to a specific source are indicated by ‘attributed’ in the source note; quotations which are popularly attributed to an author but whose authenticity is doubted are indicated by a note such as ‘perhaps apocryphal’.^[14] Brandreth merely followed suit.  --Lambiam 14:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was Yogi Berra and not Einstein... or was that the joke? --Jayron32 14:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is a garbled version of the first full sentence Einstein spoke as a toddler, when he said, "Most things I will have said I haven't yet."  --Lambiam 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That would suggest that Berra borrowed that expression from Einstein, thus violating his own rule: "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Don't believe Yogi Berra. He's full of shit" --Mark Twain (attributed, possibly apocryphal) --Jayron32 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." (Abraham Lincoln) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• User:Lambiam has nailed it, with my thanks. My only quibble with Sherrin, Brandreth and their ilk is that "apocryphal" includes the concept of "attributed", so there's no need to write "attributed, possibly apocryphal". Simply writing "possibly apocryphal" would seem to fit the bill nicely. But who am I to quibble with the Oxford monolith? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  In these compendious works the term attributed is used with a quite specific meaning: "not traceable to a source, yet generally attributed (to this specific attributee)". Some quotations that are deemed "perhaps apocryphal" can neverheless be traced to a source. For example, a quotation of Coolidge's summary of a sermon about sin is traced here to a 1933 book of 'short stories about "Cal"' compiled by John Hiram McKee. So as defined and used in these works the term is not redundant. However, the choice of the term attributed is indeed curious; this summary of a sermon is attributed to Coolidge, but not in this strange Oxonian sense defined (originally?) by Sherrin. As I assume that these works do not contain quotations that are both untraceable and not generally attributed to some specific attributee, they could have used untraceable instead. The next question then is whether untraceable quotations are not always also (not only "perhaps" but even) "probably apocryphal". "Untraceable" is definitely more concise than "attributed, perhaps apocryphal".  --Lambiam 11:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

20 July plot

The Nazi investigation had concluded that Heinz Brandt and Leonhard von Moellendorff weren't members of the conspiration, but some hystorics ipotized the contrary. Can you find official sources about they weren't? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the second person, the hypothesis he was involved in the conspiracy appears only once, in History Today, 1953. Other found references are repeats after that. The assertion comes from a journalist's comment, who is also known as an historian, although as a literary historian. My reader's impression is purely that his narrative flows better with the comment than it would without. --Askedonty (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but can you found an attendible source which definitely tell he wasn't a conspirator? And also for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would more readily name not to be a conspirator, one way or the other, a non-existent notion in totalitarian systems. Even Heinrich Himmler tried to defect at one point. --Askedonty (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In any way, can you search if there are sources about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you would be meaning "comments", not sources. "Sicherheitsdienst" was not distributing certificates of exemptions, not without some serious pressure applied before. Von Moellendorff was not identified as having been awaiting orders of mutiny, that's all. --Askedonty (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Then for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"One of those present in the conference room and injured during the blast would later be accused of being involved in the plot. General Adolf Heusinger (..)" [15]. A certificate regarding Brandt was delivered on the orders of Hitler to his family, for what this may be worth (apparently there must have been enquiries going on). --Askedonty (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A positive proof of non-involvement is virtually impossible to give. It would need something like that Brandt and Moellendorff had been hospitalized since 1943, or had been travelling to Australia and did not return before 21 July. Kaltenbrunner, tasked with finding the conspirators, conducted a sweeping operation to find and eliminate officers who were not fully loyal to the Führer, also without specific evidence of actual involvement in the failed plot, having them executed by the thousands. So he did apparently not find anything that made him question Brandt's or Moellendorff's loyalty. That is about the extent of what can be said.  --Lambiam 19:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Who was Campbell-Gray

An unanswered question at Talk:Coronation of George V and Mary queries the provenance of the photographer who created File:Prince of Wales with Princess Mary 1911.png, which is given as Ian Douglas Campbell-Gray (1901-1946). Unless the royal family were employing a 10 year-old boy, this cannot be right. The image itself, copied from eBay, has the caption "taken (by Campbell-Gray) at Buckingham Palace...". The same image is at the National Portrait Gallery, but only listed as "Campbell-Gray". So can we get a positive i/d on this royal snapper? Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The dates for Mr. Ian Douglas are wrong. This indicates that he was active from 1890 to 1920, which would have made it very likely he took said picture. --Jayron32 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons is wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Campbell-Gray were a photographic studio, see this article. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it looks like that's not right. The credit Campbell-Gray is likely to a photography studio known as "Campbell Gray", which appears to have been named after two people, Campbell, and Gray. See [16], which lists the business as "Campbell-Gray Ltd" and a former name as "Campbell & Grey", the & implies to me these were two different dudes. --Jayron32 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Grey" must be a typo; see the attributions here and here, both from 1902.  --Lambiam 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)