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

March 5

Voting patterns of black immigrants to the US and their US-born descendants

What are the voting patterns of black immigrants to the US and their US-born descendants? Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is very difficult to assess but this article may be of interest to you. It should be obvious but is worth pointing out that black immigrants from Cuba are quite different in their approach to politics than those from Haiti, and those who came from Somalia have had a major political influences in the few districts where they are dominant. Former Jamaicans and Dominicans and Nigerians and Brazilians and many other countries of origin will all bring distinct linguistic/cultural/ culinary influences to politics, and immigrant medical students may have politics different from immigrant janitors or immigrant entrepreneurs or nurses. Those who served in the armed services may be distinct from those who didn't. Older traditionalists are obviously distinct from second generation innovators. In other words, it is complex and not subject to predictable cliches. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also please answer the question, What are the voting patterns of white immigrants to the US and their US-born descendants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvstalk (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• This has some good data for different racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. --Jayron32 12:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these links, you guys! Futurist110 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Operation Highjump

Would operation High-jump be classified as part of world war 2 or not. Its 1946-1947. I need to know for a article draft. Ok did'nt have to make me feel stupid. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Operation Highjump was conducted well after the War's end. Who's telling you it's part of WWII? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Not answering the question. Matt Deres (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's as much part of World War II as Trump is the current President of the United States, i.e. only in the minds of people with a very shaky grip on rationality or in some truly horrific alternate reality. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, the Roman Empire never ended.[1][2][3][4]  --Lambiam 08:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Which side did the Roman Empire take during WWII? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

March 6

Richard Nixon's thoughts on what he would have done in regards to Vietnam had he won back in 1960?

Did Richard Nixon ever say and/or write what he would have done in regards to Vietnam had he won the US Presidency back in 1960 (when he ran against JFK)? I don't necessarily mean say or write in 1960; rather, it could have been said or written later on when Nixon was reflecting back on his 1960 loss as well as on the Vietnam War. Futurist110 (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam was not yet a significant foreign policy preoccupation for the U.S. in 1960. It was the issue of "Quemoy and Matsu" (near Taiwan) and the so-called missile gap that were the stuff of debate, so I doubt you'll find much. But someone may prove me wrong. Xuxl (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Before the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, the U.S. was not heavily involved in Vietnam, and Vietnam was not a major issue for most Americans... AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Although Nixon was Vice President during the period when there was a significant increase in financial and military aid to South Vietnam, so he must have had a view on the issue. Nixon’s Retrospective on the Vietnam War mentions that he advocated direct support for the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, but no mention of the 1960 election campaign, however he doesn't seem to have been among the "doves". Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! For what it's worth, Nixon does write about Vietnam to some extent here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UyfcLYY9F0gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:Richard+inauthor:Nixon&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjg3--YlZzvAhWPZhUIHe8fAoAQ6AEwBXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false In this memoir of his, Nixon compares the people who wanted to give South Vietnam to the Vietnamese Communists in 1965 to the people who wanted to give the Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany back in 1938, arguing that appeasement didn't work back then and was not going to work in regards to Vietnam either. Futurist110 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This link would probably work as well: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UyfcLYY9F0gC&printsec=frontcover —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Painting by Abraham Hondius

On our page for Abraham Hondius it says at the end of the article that "His last known work is Ape and Cat Fighting over Dead Poultry, dated 1690." and, of course, I can find this phrase repeated all over the place, from articles that just regurgitate whatever is written on Wikipedia (is there a name for this?) but I can't find anything about that actual painting, just lots of other paintings of dogs fighting boars, etc. Does this painting exist? I'm aware of a painting by him that shows a monkey and cat fighting by a fire, but that's not it.95.150.37.158 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right, De aap en de kat is dated 1670 so not the one (BTW, it depicts The Monkey and the Cat, a fable in which a monkey uses an unwilling cat's paw to pull chestnuts out of a fire). Haven't found anything else, even searching in Dutch. Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Dutch Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Volumes 1-2 (p. 351) says of Hondius: "The last dated works are from 1689 and 1690", but without telling us the titles or subjects. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I could find only one work of Hondius dated 1690: "Bergmeer met herten en vogels".  --Lambiam 11:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, the phrase was lifted from this source. I think the flow was from there to Wikipedia and not in the reverse direction, not only because of the general similarity of the text on ChinaOilPainting.com to the oldest revision on Wikipedia, but more specifically because of the duplication of the clause "where he spent the rest of his life". The same duplication, marginally paraphrased, is found in the version upon creation, but the redundancy was removed a minute later. I cannot find anything resembling this in reliable sources.  --Lambiam 12:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Antarctica in WW2

Writing draft for Events in Antarctica in WW2. any main operations besides New Swabia, Auxilliary cruiser Komet and operation Tabarin? Should I add rumors of nazi bases in antarctica? Gandalf the GroovyGandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Have these rumours received significant coverage in several independent reliable sources?  --Lambiam 11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Secret Nazi military base discovered by Russian scientists in the Arctic from The Independent, formerly a reliable British broadsheet, but not sure that still holds now it's online only and had several changes of ownership. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Although that's in the Arctic, not in Antarctica. Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Alas, yes: "Did Hitler have a base in the Antarctic?" in Nature no less (spoiler alert: no), "The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs: The Nazi Bunkers of Antarctica", "Weird Antarctica - the truth behind secret Nazi bases and aliens", "Hitler's Antarctic Base: The Myth and the Reality". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

March 7

Animated maps of the course of the Iraq War (2003-2011)

Are there any animated maps of the course of the Iraq War (2003-2011)? I've previously seen at least one animated map of the course of the Iraqi Civil War (2014-2017), but not of the course of the earlier Iraq War. Futurist110 (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Index of periodical articles?

Is there an index for periodical articles? As WorldCat is for books. Envisioning for example a database that lists every magazine or journal article including the title of the article, work, author, issue and date, and page(s) number. -- GreenC 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. RudolfRed (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The most succesful Dressmaker in Victorian London

Who was the most successful/fashionable dressmaker in London during the early Victorian era (1840s-1850s)? I'm not thinking about Charles Frederick Worth, but of those dressmakers actually living in London. There are information about Victorian dressmakers in general online, but I haven't found an example of anyone truly successful, and while I realize most dressmakers did'nt become rich, there must have been at least one belonging to the very elite, with clients among the aristocracy? The London equivalent to Madame Palmyre in Paris? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

John Redfern was the only name I found from those decades. Alansplodge (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That seem to be a little late; while he started is business in the 1850s, it appears he did not become the elite of his trade before the 1880s. Thank you for your effort though - but it is the early Victorian age I'm looking for. Surely there must have been at least one in the 1840s/1850s? Or did they all buy their dresses from Paris? --Aciram (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at our articles, it seems that Worth was the first of his kind:

"Revolutionizing how dressmaking had been previously perceived, Worth made it so the dressmaker became the artist of garnishment: a fashion designer" (from Haute couture).

"Where previously the dressmaker (invariably female) would visit the client's home for a one-to-one consultation, with the exception of Empress Eugénie clients generally attended Worth's salon in rue de la Paix for a consultation and it also became a social meeting point for society figures" (from Charles Frederick Worth).

"Fashion design is generally considered to have started in the 19th century with Charles Frederick Worth who was the first designer to have his label sewn into the garments that he created. Before the former draper set up his maison couture (fashion house) in Paris, clothing design and creation was handled by largely anonymous seamstresses, and high fashion descended from that worn at royal courts" (from Fashion design).

Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Aciram -- in the 1840s, I would assume that high-end clothing was still sold under the traditional model of discreet exclusivity, rather than modern publicity-seeking, so that famous-name "designers" in the modern sense didn't yet exist. Fashion plates were published, and a few people became famous/notorious due to a royal connection or similar (see Rose Bertin who dressed Marie Antoinette), but the whole business model was different than in the 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I phrased myself wrong, but if I was not actually asking for "designers", but for "dressmakers": that is, for professionals within the dressmaking business, even if they did not design the clothes themselwes. Judging from the article History of fashion design, there were indeed famous dressmakers before Worth. I am looking for just those "discreet exclusivity" non-designer-seamstresses you are talking about: they may not have been designers, but they were succesful businesspeople, which is my interest here. There are several examples from France, such as Madame Palmyre and Madame Victorine, but none from London? I have read so much about the poor Victorian seamstresses working under terrible condititions, but surely there must have been some elite London seamstress who actually became rich and fashionable? It was actually the time period just prior to the rise of the "modern fashion design industry" I was looking for...--Aciram (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There's something on the Royal Collection Trust website [5]. 95.150.9.67 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mary Bettans and Elizabeth Johnston (dressmaker) ‎were indeed the kind of "fashionable non-designer-dressmakers" I was looking for! Their articles should have year of life and death, as well as some estimation for how long their careers lasted.--Aciram (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

March 8

Why do Americans care so much about the British royals?

Quite a significant amount of Americans seem to follow to one extent or another the developments surrounding the British royal family while the news media covers major events surrounding them on a scale unlike the coverage of any other royal families of Europe. There are still more than a handful of ruling royal families in the world. Why the singular focus on the British royals in the United States? StellarHalo (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was specifically the British Crown against which the patriots rebelled. And they have the same language (more or less), and a lot of American culture comes from the UK originally. See Special Relationship for more. Still, in the end, I share your confusion; I don't think there's any very good reason. --Trovatore (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The UK as a country may be going down the gurgler on a weekly basis, but the British Royal Family is a focus of everlasting interest to people all over the world, and has been for a very long time. It's not just the USA that follows their doings. The real question is, why would anyone apart from the British have any interest in a bunch of folks who inherited their positions and have no say in how anything of consequence is done, including much of their own lives. This is also true of the Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Spanish, Dutch yada yada Royal Families, but a lot of folks who follow the British Royals are barely aware that these other Royal Families even exist. Whence the huge disparity in interest? It must surely have a lot to do with the fact that just about every country that has English as its official or dominant language has at one time been a British possession, and colonial memories are very long. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd just like to note that for quite a number of those countries, including Jack's and mine, the British royal family is also their own royal family; but of course this is not the case for the USA. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What might be another factor is that the British have very active tabloid journalism. The British tabloids do the hard work, making it easier for people in other counties to follow the British royals. Royals on other countries don't attract really much attention even in their own country. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

JackofOz -- In the post-WW2 period, the Benelux and Scandinavian monarchies became known as "bicycle" monarchies (we actually have an article Bicycle monarchy), and those surrounding the British royal family were determined not to go down the "bicycle" route. At that time there was no Spanish monarchy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because it's really, really hard to find any other royals who are native English speakers? DOR (HK) (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Grace Kelly spoke passable English. --Jayron32 16:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure Queen Noor of Jordan was a native speaker. If we're just talking about a good level of English, I assume some of the Middle East ones have good, sometimes even close to native English, as they did their tertiary and maybe even secondary or even primary education in some part of the anglophone world or at least an English medium school. E.g. Princess Haya bint Hussein. A number of the Malaysian ones too e.g. Tengku Amir Shah or Nazrin Shah of Perak. (As evidenced in one of those articles, it isn't uncommon for them to marry non Malaysians who are either native speakers, or at least have good English e.g. [6], although I'll give you that their spouses tend to have low profiles after marriage. There's the infamous case of Jacqueline Pascarl, although Raja Kamarul Bahrin being a part of the royal family is more of an aside.)

BTW, I think a number of these examples and others e.g. Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum, to demonstrate a connection to PiusImpavidus's point above. In the Middle East and Asian royalties, criticism of the royal families is a lot more restricted. While this only applies internally, it makes it harder for scandal and coverage to radiate outwards. People tend to be a lot more interested in claims someone asked how dark a child is going to be than they are in the wondrous charity work or whatever. Consider the case of Iskandar of Johor and the 1993 amendments to the Constitution of Malaysia#Gomez Incident, where the assaults were only publicised in Malaysia when the government tactically allowed it. And this was probably more because it was politically convenient as it helped them, Mahathir bin Mohamed really, in a power struggle rather than because they were horrified over what had been done.

(And there are persistent rumours of far worse e.g. [7] [8] and some simply not published in an RS. The nature of Malaysian politics means to this day it's impossible to be sure these are true, even though the veracity of a lot of this should be far easier to determine than what Prince Andrew may have done. Of course that also has the flipside that these rumours may very well be completely false, but many people don't believe any denials. Such things aren't restricted to members of the royal families of course, I've heard some nasty stuff about politicians or actually I think it was one their children, and I'm not referring to the Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa.)

Taking this back on topic, when this coverage does make it to America, there's probably some degree or "otherness" or "that's what it's like there" reducing the interest. And I think the Sultan assaulted someone (let alone the rumour he beat someone to death for laughing at a poor golf shot) or the princess was kidnapped back to Dubai and is now being held against her will, is also the sort of story that's too nasty to be serve most people's prurient interest, compared to something like my earlier example of asking how dark a child is going to be.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Among other things (mentioned above), they're among the very wealthiest people on the planet, even if their ability to access it is very restricted. Actually, the American fascination with the royal family reminds me of atheism, in the sense that there any many atheists who are specifically atheistic about a particular religion, since it formed their cultural background. That lack of connection has a different tone than that for other religions for which no connection ever existed. Among "converted" atheists, there's a religion they're separating from - and so it is with Americans and the British royals. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That substitute religion could be called Anglophilia. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 17:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do Americans care so much about the British royals? For the same reason that freak shows always get a sizeable audience. Articles about a bunch of ultra-privileged inbred nincompoops always go down well with the forelock-tuggers. It's not just the USA: the French lapped up the tragic tale of Didi et Dodi. MinorProphet (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz's sentence "It's not just the USA that follows their doings." I didn't look for references to back this up, but my impression from consuming European non-English-language media indicates that it's definitely not just the United States media who report an awful lot about the British Royals (when compared to other monarchical families, and when compared to what I find relevant, personally). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's been a recent boom I'm unaware of, we don't. The US press spends very little time covering them. Temerarius (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you been watching the US brodcast TV network morning shows in the past week or two? AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Americans have been without a "royal family" since the Kennedys no longer regularly appear on red carpets. The Kardashian freakshow is a somewhat inadequate substitute. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on comparisons to the standard level of drama in the British Royal Family, I would say the Kardashian freakshow and the Windsor freakshow are rather equivalent, excpeting the Kardashian freakshow is less scary given that it doesn't have constitutional powers it could screw everything up with. --Jayron32 15:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the criticism seems to have been levelled at the civil servants who support the Royal Family; there have been no accusations against the Queen and the Prince of Wales has been accused of not answering the telephone, so I don't see any constitutional issues. Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom would tend to disagree with you; while most of the Queen's power is in practice not exercised, it is real power. The UK constitution operates mostly under the "Well, we could, but we just don't" theory of governance. My point is that while the Kardashian drama is pure entertainment, the Windsors have real (if currently not being used) constitutional power. --Jayron32 15:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Although arguably the that lack of exercising of power is due to the "Well, we could, but we just wont (for the time being)" policy of beheading, expelling, or forcing to abdicate monarchs who overstep the mark. Iapetus (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My point was that this latest farrago involves the Queen not one jot. The squabbles of the extended family are not a constitutional issue, unless it gets to the point where the whole edifice is undermined. We're a long way from that. Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Jayron32 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In this context, a better term than "policy" is "time-honoured tradition".  --Lambiam 00:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The squabbles of the extended family are not a constitutional issue, unless it gets to the point where the whole edifice is undermined. We're a long way from that. No, the point has already been reached. We would have reached it before but for the fact that Her Majesty, who did not attend her son's 2005 ceremony, blocked legislation to legalise it (royals cannot marry in register offices). This has been the law since the introduction of civil marriage in 1837 and for good reason - we don't want our kings and queens to marry people of the same sex in people's back gardens as proposed by the Law Commission [9] (see page 6 for confirmation that the ban in the 1836 Act remains in force).

The Church has taken action by convening a Zoom conference commencing 10 am London time on Saturday, 20 March to discuss the matter. Law professors who have written papers explaining why the 2005 ceremony was illegal, including a Law Commissioner, will be on hand. Anyone can attend, but if you are not a member of the Ecclesiastical Law Society there is a five pounds attendance fee. The booking form is at [10]. 95.149.135.255 (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the issues the conference will be exploring is "the legalities of marrying in accordance with the rites of the Church of England today whether by banns or licence." This is topical following Meghan's revelation on Sunday that the Archbishop of Canterbury conducted a private ceremony before the official one. Lawyers who claimed the first ceremony did not create a marriage because no witnesses were present are wrong.

In their judgment in Akhter v Khan (2020) the Court of Appeal stated (paragraph 33):

The statutory regulation of marriage started with the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753, known as Lord Hardwicke's Act. There is some debate about the extent of the problem but the long title An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage, makes clear the Act's purpose. It was intended to "put an end to clandestine and irregular marriages", Rayden on Divorce 2^nd Ed., 1926 at p. 36, paragraph 13 n (a). A clandestine marriage was a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest without any other formality and which, because of the lack of formality and its secret nature, meant that it was difficult to establish whether someone was or was not validly married.

The 1753 Act expressly stated that its restrictions did not apply to the royal family. Professor Rebecca Probert, who will open the conference, notes in The presumptions in favour of marriage (2018) 77CLJ 375:

Before 1754, entry into marriage was governed by the canon law. Its stipulations were for the most part merely directory, the only essential requirements being that the parties had freely consented to marry each other before an Anglican clergyman. It was thus entirely plausible that a marriage might have taken place without any formal record being made...

At the same time, there was little need for any presumption that the ceremony had been properly performed, since a marriage celebrated without banns or licence, at the wrong time of day, and not in any church would still be valid as long as the person solemnising it was authorised to do so. But after 25 March 1754, certain formalities became essential to the validity of any marriage (save those celebrated by special licence, according to the usages of Jews or Quakers, or involving members of the royal family).

So when Harry and Meghan walked into St George's Chapel, Windsor for their wedding they were already married. This is the exact opposite of what happened in 2005. Camilla and Charles' wedding ceremony at Windsor register office was play-acting as far as the law is concerned and had no legal consequences. When they walked across the road to the chapel for the ceremony conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury they weren't married. During the service there was no expression of consent and the Archbishop did not pronounce them man and wife. So when they walked out they still weren't married. 89.240.118.119 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 9

Is Alko a supermarket?

Someone recently added Alko to the template Template:Supermarkets in Finland. Is this right? I for myself can't see Alko as a supermarket as it is a government enterprise and not a commercial for-profit business. The Finnish law even prevents Alko from advertising its products. JIP | Talk 01:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Navigation templates are always a tough thing to hammer down, and aren't normally intended to be categorizations of any particular article. Based on the content of the template (including retail liquor stores and convenience stores), a better description might be "Retail food and drink in Finland". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether they're government-owned, allowed to advertise or for-profit is irrelevant. There are co-operative non-profit supermarkets too. What is relevant is what they sell. If (mostly) limited to alcoholic beverages, it's more like a liquor store than a supermarket. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Alko is exclusively a liquor store. Well, Finnish law requires it to sell non-alcoholic drinks as well, but otherwise it's a liquor store. You won't find groceries, candy, electronics or household products in Alko. As by law only Alko is allowed to sell strong liquor, that's pretty much the only thing it does. JIP | Talk 11:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Based on your description, I would remove it from that template and any such categorization as a supermarket. It sounds almost exactly like what is, in the U.S., called ABC stores, where ABC stands for "Alcoholic Beverage Commission" or something similar (depending on the state). An ABC store is a state-run liquor store. --Jayron32 15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I have removed it from the template. JIP | Talk 15:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Xiongnu

What historians would be considered experts on the Xiongnu people? like their way of life and history and stuff like that? And what are the best books on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00the0 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The archaeologist Sergey S. Miniaev (Russian: Сергей С. Миняев; French: Serguei S. Minajev), not to be confused with TV-host Sergey Minaev, has published several studies on the Xiongnu. He is affiliated with the Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences, section Archaeology of Central Asia and Caucasus.  --Lambiam 10:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

March 10

Industrialization in North Vietnam and South Vietnam in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s

Which country was more industrialized in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s: North Vietnam or South Vietnam? Also, what about more urbanized? Futurist110 (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a little bit of information at Economic history of Vietnam, which notes that by the end of 1966, the U.S. bombing campaign, Operation Rolling Thunder, decimated the North's industries, it basically had no industry for a while after that. There was no similar crippling of industry in the south. --Jayron32 12:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And earlier: "North Vietnam inherited 28 factories from the French; with Chinese and Soviet materials and advice, they constructed more than 100 new factories. By 1960, the North was able to mine its own coal, manufacture its own farm machinery, produce its own bricks and building supplies, build its own barges and ferries and generate its own electricity. Industrialisation was not without its problems. North Vietnam was desperately short of skilled technicians and experts, such as engineers, architects and metallurgists to oversee its larger projects". [11] Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Where did North Vietnam import these experts from? China and the Soviet Union? Somewhere else? Also, what about South Vietnam's industrialization? Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Maison de Robespierre

What was the name of the royalist lawyer arrested in 1933? --95.232.235.71 07:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

La Mémoire de Robespierre à Arras mentions on page 1044 the arrest, on that day, of Maître Degraeve, a member of the Camelots du Roi. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This book here mentions the protests and the painting of the mayor's house in some detail, but does not name the lawyer in question. --Jayron32 12:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --95.232.235.71 14:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Freisler and Vyshinsky

In 1937, Roland Freisler was at Moscow to take legal lessons from Andrey Vyshinsky during Mikhail Tukhachevsky's trial. Are there some information about that meeting? --95.232.235.71 08:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.235.71 (talk)

Lupu Dinescu

There's a Romanian minesweeper Lieutenant Lupu Dinescu, but my search didn't find anything about Lupu Dinescu. Apparently, he must have done something notable to become a ship's namesake, but books don't have anything on him either which a bit strange. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PS. It appears that the Romanian Navy has a whole bunch of ships named after otherwise unknown military personnel: Admiral Petre Bărbuneanu (ship), Rear-Admiral Eustațiu Sebastian (ship), etc. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe part of the reason these aren't so easy to find in a search is that Romanian often uses names in a different order, family name first. This book [12] seems to have something relevant: "La 2 decembrie 1941, Aspirantul DINESCU LUPU şi-a pierdut viaţa împreună cu echipajele a două şalupe dragoare de sub comanda sa. A fost avansat post-mortem la gradul de locotenent şi decorat cu „Ordinul Mihai Viteazu cu spada”" (Google translate: On December 2, 1941, the aspirant Dinescu Lupu lost his life together with the crews of two minesweepers under his command. He was promoted post-mortem to the rank of lieutenant and decorated with the Order of Michael the Brave with swords." He's listed as "Lupu St Dinescu" hereFut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The Romanian Wikipedia has an article Petre Bărbuneanu, he was the commander of the Romanian Navy 1937-1940 and 1945-1946. Likewise article for ro:Eustațiu Sebastian, commander of the Romanian Navy 1909-1917. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a name for this type of book?

I'm thinking specifically about a genre of historical non-fiction, which takes as its starting point one particular subject, such as 'salt' and then goes on to explore various aspects of world history from that starting point. For example, who first discovered salt, who first brought salt to China, how salt affected trade in the Middle Ages, how salt started a particular war, etc. I know they had salt in China, but you catch my drift, I'm just using salt as a crude example because I know there is a book called 'Salt: A World History' which does something similar. My question is... is there a name for this type of history book, where a variety of subjects are approached using one initial item, substance, field of study, etc.?95.150.37.158 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It would fall broadly under "topical history" (something which doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article). By the way, there's a book "Salt as a Factor in the Confederacy" by Ella Lonn whose title seems odd to me, but which is apparently a serious subject (we have an article Salt in the American Civil War)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The general premise reminds me of Connections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Connections jumped from one thing to the next in the chain, hence the name. I'm not sure there is a good name for this kind of book; in a way, every history book is a topical history book, so it's all about degree. If you want to be very generous with the terminology, you might call such things longitudinal studies, but that's maybe not helpful. I took a look in my copy of One Good Turn and the frontispiece only suggests it get categorized under screwdrivers - history and screws - history rather than attempting to group it with books of a similar style. Matt Deres (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

We have an article on monograph. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 11

Other cases where the U.S. engaged in military action to prevent countries from falling to Communist rule?

Other than in South Korea (during the Korean War), Taiwan (during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis), and South Vietnam (during the Vietnam War; in this case the U.S.'s effort was ultimately unsuccessful with the 1975 Fall of Saigon), which other cases were there where the U.S. engaged in military action to prevent countries from falling to Communist rule? Futurist110 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What about Operation Cyclone? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not direct military action but close enough. So, Yeah, it definitely works for this! Futurist110 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify–Operation Cyclone, while not a direct U.S. military intervention, was definitely an EXTREMELY massive (non-military) U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan from falling under Communist rule. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

United States invasion of Grenada might qualify. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But that specific invasion was more due to the U.S.'s fear of a repeat of the Iran hostage crisis rather than due to the U.S.'s fear of Communism, no? Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As might Bay of Pigs Invasion. Though both the Grenada and Cuba situations were aimed at removing an already-communist government. The Grenada thing worked, while the Cuba thing was a miserable failure. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 06:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs attempt, while unsuccessful, definitely works for this! Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clear up something, for a few years before the 1983 invasion, Grenada was ruled by a leftist government that irked the U.S. quite a bit, but was not considered a danger to U.S. interests. However, when Maurice Bishop was assassinated and replaced by an even more extremist bunch, there was fear that a Cuban-style move to the Soviet orbit was on the way, prompting the U.S. intervention. The fate of the American medical students at St. George's University was just a pretext; this was definitely a "prevent communism" type of action. Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly; I'll have to read up more on this. Was having such a small island end up in the Soviet sphere of influence really that threatening to US interests, though? The story with the safety of the medical students does make sense, when one thinks about it. As in, that this invasion was a preemptive move to eliminate the risk of another Iran hostage crisis occurring later on. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

For years, I've wondered why Jacobo Arbenz included communists in his coalition. Dwight Eisenhower was not particularly gung-ho about conducting military interventions, but in the context of the United States in 1954, a Western Hemisphere government including communists was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Of course, the communists were not in any position to take over in Guatemala (though some propaganda at the time apparently pretended that they were)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Árbenz did not fill any cabinet-level positions with members of the Guatemalan Party of Labour (PGT). While the PGT fraction in parliament supported his policies generally, it is not clear one can say they were included in the coalition. The 1954 coup d'état may have been inspired more by the lobbying of the United Fruit Company, with the spectre of communism serving as a facile guise.  --Lambiam 09:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course the Communist connection was mostly a pretext for those who directly organized the coup. However, the article which you linked to says that the party "gained prominence during the government of Col. Jacobo Arbenz". If Eisenhower would not have have authorized a covert action on behalf of United Fruit, but did authorize the covert action on the basis of getting rid of a communist-friendly Western Hemisphere government, then Arbenz's coalition with communists was very costly... AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was the specific role of Communists in the Jacobo Arbenz government? Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: — I was questioning the appropriateness of the term "coalition" for the relation of the Árbenz administration with "communists". If Árbenz did not have a coalition with communists, Guatemala's ordeal was not induced by him miscalculating its cost.  --Lambiam 08:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Without engaging in direct military hostilities, the US definitely put its muscle behind efforts to keep Italy and Greece out of the hands of the Reds. See Operation Gladio for one example. I personally find the idea of the stay-behind operations kind of touching, in principle, how can you not choke up at silendo libertatem servo? but in actual operation they may have become the thing they hated. You may find links to examples of that when reading about the years of lead. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; will take a look at your links! Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, without US military aid – a form of intervention – the leftist National Liberation Front, dominated by the KKE, would have won the Greek Civil War. Some Greeks and Turks will choke up by the thought of stay-behind operations in Turkey and the personal as well as social losses they entailed.  --Lambiam 09:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I definitely know that the Greek Civil War was a close call! Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Further indirect action was CIA activities in Nicaragua in support of the Contras, and United States intervention in Chile against President Salvador Allende. Alansplodge (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Against the Contras, certainly, but was Salvador Allende actually a Communist? Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Our article says he was a "Marxist". Can you be a Marxist without being a communist? Maybe, depending on your definitions of the two terms, but it's a distinction I would not have expected to be convincing to cold-war US policymakers, even if they believed it, which they likely would not have. I think Castro claimed, before seizing power, that he did not intend to impose Soviet-style single-party communist rule, which of course was exactly what he did. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the Angolan Civil War, the U.S. provided financial and materiel support to UNITA against the ruling communist MPLA (or is this the UDA, or is it the IRA, I thought it was the UK...) --Jayron32 13:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

UNITA and even more so to FNLA. Farawayman (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. And Congress was concerned enough that the U.S. would be dragged into another Vietnam-like quagmire that it prevented President Ford from supporting UNITA. [13]. Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So, the U.S. Congress allowed President Ford to support UNITA with money and weapons but not with troops? I'm trying to reconcile your comment here with Jayron32's comment above here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the article in question? The U.S. had supported UNITA and previously the FNLA with money and weapons (and probably a small number of covert "advisors") however, when Ford sought to expand this aid, he was denied by Congress. There was never any U.S.-based ground troops in Angola; in terms of "boots on the ground" the main foreign forces in Angola at the time were South African; it was the South African withdrawal in 1976 that precipitated Ford's request to Congress to amp-up American funding of UNITA; while Ford didn't ask for ground troop authorization at the time; there was genuine fear that he would soon, and Congress nipped that in the bud. Also note that the Angolan Civil War is a confusing mess of a war, in many ways similar to the Syrian Civil War in current times; it was not merely a war between two different sides, but there were multiple groups all vying for power, and the way foreign powers were involved didn't always mirror their international alliances; China and the U.S. for example both supported UNITA, even at a time when China was seen as a communist "enemy" of the U.S. --Jayron32 12:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

United States Antarctic Service Expedition

Bit of confusion here. It says on the main page they built West Base and East Base during this expedition. But the Little America article says Little America III was built during this time. Is West Base the same as Little America III? Did they build 3 bases during the expedition? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems so. See: [14] --Amble (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Former Shi'a-majority territories and/or regions?

Are there any territories and/or regions that used to be Shi'a-majority but no longer Shi'a majority are right now? Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Fatimid Caliphate? --Amble (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 12

Between Queen Victoria and the Parliament in the XIX century

I'm watching a series of videos titled Victoria. It is a PBS production, the UK edition, and is available at the Prime Video channel at Amazon.com. It is a gorgeous, high quality cinematography. I want to know if most of the scenes are authentic or some of them are fictional. So, the scene I want to describe is a touchstone for me. Lord Melbourne is Victoria's prime minister. He wants to resign but she tries to convince him to stay. The commons want him to go also. He is a Whig but the Commons' dominated by the Tories. He tells her that he is under pressure, but he also mentions a loophole. If you have four ministers, he says, who are Whigs, but their wives are Tories, then it would be OK for the Commons. I wonder if such a conversation really happen or at least could have happened. Of course some events in the movie are clearly historical but I am not sure others are. I don't really want to watch fiction. AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like the Bedchamber Crisis. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As with many of this type of production, it's a mixture of historical facts with fiction. See Victoria (British TV series)#Historical accuracy. Rojomoke (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's called dramatization (which is a disambiguation page; I'm rather surprised that we don't have an article.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mystical experiences without drug use

I was curious if it is possible to have mystical experiences without the usage of drugs or other mind-altering substances. I've checked the articles about mysticism, but it didn't provide guides on how to achieve such mystical experiences, just a cultural and historical overview. I'm searching for practical guides and advice.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Not answering the question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Define "mystical". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC) I'm open for different kinds of mystical experiences. My specific interest is in having supernatural experiences. I want to see if such stuff is real. Consider me a truthseeker.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC) There is no such thing as the supernatural. That should narrow your search a tad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC) I don't care if you believe in the supernatural or not. I'm curious in seeking it out for myself.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC) First seek out whether the world is flat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC) I don't wanna sound rude, but I don't care about your personal opinions, Bugs. Wikipedia isn't your private website and I'm not here to debate you.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC) It is the Science deck. The science does not deal with the supernatural. You are in the wrong forum. Your post must be removed.AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC) This is the humanities desk, isn't it? History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society? It seems to me that both history and philosophy are connected to mysticism, as well as some religions (although there are religions which don't have mystical traditions and some outright reject the mere idea).--85.4.148.47 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific. Mysticism is a word with a lot of different meanings, most of which tie in to profound religious understandings (see religious experience), sometimes involving initiation into sacred mysteries. I guess some may involve drugs, but that's really not a key part of it at all in most cases. You might be thinking of psychedelic experiences, which are often brought about my drugs, but there's nothing supernatural about them. I suspect you might find our article on the God helmet of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Matt! Let me be more specific! What I try to accomplish are basically drug-like states without using drugs. I'm sorry if my wording was confusing. Psychedelic experiences might be a good way of describing what I mean!--85.4.148.47 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you watched the "trip" portion of 2001: A Space Odyssey? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

According to some authors, breathing techniques and meditation can help to reach a mystical state.^[15][16][17]  --Lambiam 07:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, exercising to exhaustion (such as by dancing), fasting for extended periods, (deliberate) dehydration, listening to drum beats or other rhythmical music for extended periods, sensory deprivation (such as lying still in in an unlit cave), sleep deprivation, and of course various permutations of these may bring about states of mind that could be interpreted as 'mystical': I myself have experienced the effects of some of these. You might find something of interest in the article Shamanism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm II and German foreign policy in the run-up to World War I

Were the behaviors and policy views of Emperor William/Wilhelm II responsible for Germany's weak geopolitical position and diplomatic isolation immediately prior to the First World War, namely the dismissal of Otto von Bismarck and the decision to abandon the alliance with Russia in 1890? Or were the German elites and the general public also supportive of those actions? StellarHalo (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Germany's weak geopolitical position and diplomatic isolation were largely caused by not existing until less than 50 years before World War I. Most of the great powers in Europe had built their economic and political capital through colonization, and Germany had centuries of lag time to catch up. To be fair, they did a fantastic job of catching up, especially after the Berlin Conference, and their colonial administration is frequently cited as among the most advanced among the great powers, but there's something to be said for experience, and Britain, France, and Russia (if you consider their Asian territory as "colonial") each had a huge lead in that regard, with years of lead time developing colonial infrastructure and building their economic and political power upon it. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that European political power was built on colonization, and the other great powers just had more of it for longer. --Jayron32 12:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)