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

December 15

Did she really have the office?

Did Claude Catherine de Clermont really have the office of Governess to the Children of France? Her article as well as the article of the office say so, but does not cite any sources, nor do Google seem to offer much. She seem to be too young to have the office of governess to the children of Catherine de Medici, as she was only one year older than the eldest, and such an office was normally only given to widows: if not, when exactly was she royal governess? Is this perhaps in fact a mix up with her mother-in-law, Marie-Catherine Gondi (who did have the office)?--Aciram (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aciram: Yes, she really did. Interesting Anecdotes of the Heroic Conduct of Women Previous to and During the French Revolution page 237. Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/AJu1SYh.png I am not sure when she held the office exactly, so I'll claim it was between 1986 and 1989 and someone will come along and correct this error. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also supported by the Dictionnaire historique de la France p. 543 (in French), although no dates either. Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you very much, @The Quixotic Potato: and @Alansplodge: ! But that still leaves the frustrating question as to when, because the marginals seem to be so slim, because of her age... she was only ten years older than the youngest of the royal children! And such an office seems to have been given only to widows or married women. I suppose it would be reasonable to suppose that she succeeded her mother-in-law, who was made royal governess in 1550 and then given another office in 1559? It was not possible for an unmarried woman to have such an office, but she married in 1561, so she might have became governess then and functioned as such for the youngest of the royal children (Margaret) until 1569? I suppose that would be reasonable ...--Aciram (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pure guesswork, but it is theoretically possible that she was helping her mom at an early age, and then took over the role. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Homeless people sleeping in the United States

Where are homeless people legally aloud to sleep at night? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

allowed. Cars (until they can no longer afford them, or sleeping in cars is no longer allowed). Shelters (which do not have space for them). On strangers couches (but no one cares). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

According to a NLCHP report last year that surveyed 187 cities between 2011 and 2014, 34 percent had citywide laws banning camping in public. Another 43 percent prohibited sleeping in vehicles, and 53 percent banned sitting or lying down in certain public places. All of these laws criminalize the kind of activities — sitting, resting, sleeping — that are arguably fundamental to human existence. And they've criminalized that behavior in an environment where most cities have far more homeless than shelter beds. In 2014, the federal government estimates, there were about 153,000 unsheltered homeless on the street in the U.S. on any given night.

— It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says - Washington Post

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it will differ by state, and perhaps by county (especially in regards to panhandling laws). See Homelessness in the United States and Homelessness in the United States by state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadfium (talk • contribs)

The links posted by Gadfium are incredibly depressing. Quote: "In February 2013, Marlene Baldwin, a woman in her late 70s was arrested and jailed for asking a plain clothed officer for $1.25.". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to get some free lodging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. "Allowed", of course. My hands betrayed me. I assure you my brain was working but my brain had other ideas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your hands had other ideas. Want some coffee? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Some coffee"? I need a five-gallon drum of coffee. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I must say I am shocked. I am reading that most places allow sleeping in public, but many do not. "...Clearwater [Florida] has nearly half of its homeless population (42%), without access to emergency housing or affordable housing and like other cities such as Orlando, punishes heavily sleeping or sitting in public..." And there is the matter of showering and going to the loo. This is quite upsetting.

Thank you for the responses. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ironic isn't it. A phase associated with the statue of liberty is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” during the time when America needed cheap labor from Europe. Now, the US ignores their very own born, who are poor and live in huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. Rather giving Green Card to foreigners who take their jobs away. On the bright side, all they have to do whilst laying on their backs in the gutter, is to look up into the sky, view the stars and realize, that they are in the land of opportunity with the street still paved with gold. All they have to do to realize the dream is to get off their lazy backsides, inherit a fortune (a common day requirement), get to know the right people (money and attending the right collage helps), and maybe bribe a few politicians on the way. Aspro (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

D'you have any suggestions about collages?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Blaim the college dropout bill gates for creating such an awfull spell checker ! Aspro (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC).

Aspro, ironic indeed. A crueler irony than inviting cheap European labour is forcibly bringing Africans to help build the country and then, when no longer needed, locking them in cages to enrich the white, private prison owners and the corporations who use dollar-an-hour prison call center workers. Outrageous. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"A phase associated with the statue of liberty is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” "

I am not American, but I am familiar with that phrase. I have heard it used sarcastically in so many works. It is a line from The New Colossus (1883) by Emma Lazarus. The poem reads:

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It contrasts a lot with the history of Nativism in the United States, anti-immigration policies, and exclusion acts. In fact the poem was written a year following the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), which prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers. The Act stayed in force until 1943.

Lazarus was out of step with the politics of her time. She wanted the United States to open its gates to victims of then ongoing anti-Semitic pogroms in the Russian Empire, and tried to ensure that destitute Jewish immigrants would receive vocational training. Politically she believed in Georgism and supported reforms against economic inequality. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Guardian series about a UN special monitor going round AMerica, e.g. A journey through a land of extreme poverty: welcome to America. As to Baseball Bugs remark about getting lodging in jail - that is a a route to even more dire poverty accompanied by fines which can never be paid off. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The government of Western Australia is taking action after this: [1]. See Death of Ms Dhu. 92.5.85.128 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Corporate czars

Shuman Ghosemajumder is called "the former click fraud czar at Google", without further explanation. It's not exactly self-explanatory what a "czar" in a corporation is supposed to be. Czar (political term) helps in understanding; but then, can the political and the corporate use of the term really be identified? Should the article maybe be broadened, or another one created? --KnightMove (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can link to wiktionary? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tsar#English

1. An emperor of Russia (1547 to 1917) and of some South Slavic kingdoms.
2. A person with great power; an autocrat.
3. An appointed official tasked to regulate or oversee a specific area.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Have there been cases of developed-country airlines using passenger blacklists for discrimination?

I'm Russian. About a week ago Vladimir Putin signed a federal law allowing airlines to blacklist any passenger prosecuted for criminal or administrative offences commited on board for up to one year after the court ruling against that passenger comes into force.

So, I googled as hard as I could, but haven't been able to find any cases of developed-country airlines using passenger blacklists for discrimination (e.g. for saying you're LGBT or childfree on a Deep South flight full of blue-collar Republicans). Is it that there have been no such publicly-documented cases, or that I'm bad at googling? --185.147.82.205 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Putin khuilo! Would you consider Kuwait to be a developed country? Kuwait Airways guilty of discrimination for not flying Israelis. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being ambiguous, by "developed" I meant not only advanced in terms of economy but also of human rights. Moreover, also this is part of the more general trend of the Anti-Israeli discrimination which is also practiced by Muslim-majority countries' governmental customs and border control officers. Thanks anyway. Do you happen to know of any other such cases in politically developed countries? --185.147.82.205 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Kuwait doesn't recognize the State of Israel. Thus an Israeli passport is not a valid ID document to board a Kuwaiti flight. Try boarding a US plane with a ID issued by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan or another entity not recognized by the US and see the reaction. --Soman (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your answer is extremely inadequate at best, disingenuous or dishonest at worst. The United States doesn't recognize Taiwan, but it permits people from Taiwan to enter the United States. The U.S. has also permitted some people with a variety of Travel documents, laissez-passers, Nansen passports etc. etc. to enter the country from time to time. Furthermore, traditionally Arab states didn't only bar Israeli nationals from entering, but ALSO third-party nationals for which there was evidence that they had ever travelled to Israel, in the form of Israeli visa stamps in their passports. Some Arab countries still do this. Kuwait made its attitude towards Israelis (and Jews) perfectly clear in 1985, when The National Assembly of Kuwait on Saturday called on Egypt to free a policeman sentenced to life imprisonment for killing seven Israeli tourists and honor him as a hero of the Arab people. The National Assembly asked Egypt to release Sgt. Suleiman Khater immediately and honor him because he has "restored to the Arab people some of its dignity."December 29, 1985 Los Angeles Times Frankly, most people on all sides would have been better off if a large number of Arab politicians hadn't had a pathological fixation with destroying Israel and throwing the Jews into the sea for so many decades... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The media backlash that a major airline like Delta or American Airlines would receive for even one of their agents refusing to board someone on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, would be so enormous in this climate that it simply does not happen that often. There was a huge kerfuffle earlier this year when United refused to board two girls for wearing leggings. You can imagine what the response would be like if an agent were more overt in their discrimination.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be made clear here that those "girls" refused seating were actually employees using the free travel perk which has a published dress code which they were violating. These were not random paying customers, but employees breaking the rules. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Digressing on top of a digression, if I recall correctly, they weren't employees themselves, but rather family members of an employee, using a perk that extended to family members. The airline's claim was that they "represented" the airline and therefore should be dressed better.

My feeling at the time was that the airline was, formally, completely within its rights, but that it handled the situation idiotically. Who the hell cared, or even knew, that these girls were traveling on an employee benefit? They made them pull clothes out of their luggage and cover up the leggings while in line. Other customers saw them and concluded that they too had to change — not unreasonably, because, again, how were they to know that the girls were flying on an employee benefit? Or how were they to know that that mattered?

So certainly the segment of the public reaction that treated the airline as enforcing some sort of 1950s sensibility on the general public was misinformed. But it was a self-inflicted wound on the part of the airline. --Trovatore (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Further proving my point that U.S. airline companies have very little room to leverage in the eyes of the media when it comes to denying boarding to passengers.--WaltCip (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it appears they were the daughters of an employee flying on his pass. From Glamour, quoting United's spokesperson

"Our regular passengers are not going to be denied boarding because they are wearing leggings or yoga pants,” Guerin said. “But when flying as a pass traveler, we require pass travelers to follow rules, and that is one of those rules. They were not compliant with the dress policy with the benefit." The Washington Post also noted that he said that the girls were aware of the internal rule.

Guerin added that they won't be making their internal policies public at this time, but flyzed.com, which details internal policies involving check-in, baggage, and dress code for passengers flying on employee passes for a number of airlines, has what it says is United Airline's flight benefit dress code on their site. It specifically prohibits "formfitting Lycra/spandex tops, pants, and dresses" for any gender (and, well, age). It does allow shorts for all genders and ages so long as they don't hit more than three inches above the knee "when in a standing position."

μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No_Fly_List#Notable_cases may be of interest to you, although it is not an answer to your question. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it answers the question OK. There are plenty of cases of the US no-fly list used thus. To quote from Salon in 2002, quoted in the article: the No-Fly program seemed "to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups."John Z (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are no countries that allow everyone and anyone to enter without Travel visa. Most countries also have blacklists and other lists and strict regulations like you need to prove you have enough money to finance your visit, which is usually time restricted, even with a visa. Its probably not well known because in most cases the checks start running in the background the moment you book a flight in your home country, apply for a visa etc. --Kharon (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Homeless shelter cost

I was surprised to learn that homeless shelters in Zurich, Switzerland charge the homeless approximately $5 / day to stay. Are such fees common? I've never heard of such a thing before. Dragons flight (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The homeless in NYC often scrounge over $100/day in panhandling and can deposits. I once got politely told off by a homelss peson for crushing a soda can as I through it in the corner trash can. He explained that the automated can-return machine would accept whole cans and bottles and give a 5¢ return per can, but not if it was crushed. This policy is one reason why you don't see cans and bottles littering the streets of NYC. The homeless also go through the trash bags that building superintendents leave out lightly bound and retrieve the bottles, and then they retie the bags tightly. It's a mutually beneficial truce (tightly bound bags will be ripped open) since the buildings avoid fines for having recyclable material in their garbage. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Imagine if they put Metrocard recycling machines in out-of-the-way corners of some subway stations and reduced the new Metrocard fee from a dollar to 5 or 10 cents..

If they're making $100 a day why are they still homeless? Addicted to something? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Switzerland is a Welfare state that gives its subjects a (in comparison) high welfare provision of over 900€ per month if they are in need. Of course this is in relation to the local cost of living, which is certainly very expensive in Zurich. I also remember a documentation about a Soup kitchen for the poor in Germany which demanded a symbolic fee. So it seems common in welfare states where subjects are provisioned. One reason to demand fees is probably to prevent illegal immigrants from taking advantage and stay or to even encourage them to come, which is a big problem for all rich countries with very poor neighbors at or near their border. --Kharon (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, SMW, there are all sorts of homeless, it is a symptom, not a thing in itself. So there are the mentally ill, the down-on-their-luck, and the drug addicts. I knew a heroin addict who slept in my stairwell where I eventually found him dead. He was sane and could have sought help. There was also a totally incoherent lady who walked the Six Trains looking for quarters. I gave her food, money, and even the occasional beer in exchange for some handwaving and a blessing only Jesus understood. She should have been forcibly committed, but it was before the Giuliani era. I found her body on the train platform after a blizzard by the smell in a cave she had made by tearing out crumbling brickwork from under a leaky street grating.

From what I could tell, many stayed out of shelters due to the shakedowns and violence that occurred there and because they couldn't do drugs. When I was first in the emergency room with diverticulitis there was a junky who came in complaining of foot pain (gangrene I guess) and I heard the nurse ask "You back for your two hots and a cot?" NYC is not the woods or the desert, it's a huge overflowing pile of excess, and just like the bell curve has its billionaires at one tail, it's got another tail at or less than zero.

Violence in homeless shelters gets you this: NYC homeless prefer streets to violent shelters - NY Daily News Mar 14, 2016 - A review of shelter records by the Daily News reveals a system where violence is an everyday event.

But you also hear stories like this: Panhandling is so lucrative, Andersen said he now rents a room in Inwood after being homeless for three years. He said he’s on the street only to collect handouts. “I have gotten $80 or $100 from a single person. And they will say, ‘Just do something good tonight.’ They mean go to a hotel or a hostel, he said. “I get people who give me five bucks each day. Five bucks each day, that’s five days a week, two people — that’s $50 a week right there. I get dog food. I put away for rent. I pay $300 a month, that’s nothing.”

μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Medeis is quite right to note that homelessness is not merely a product of lack of a job or lack of income, per se. It's not as simple as "not having enough money to pay for an apartment". Many people, who would otherwise have the money for an apartment can't rent one because they fail either a credit check or a criminal background check which are often prerequisites for both a job and a rental agreement. The naive view that "homeless = poor = lazy" is basically bullshit. There are a thousand different reasons for a person to be homeless, and basically none of them are so simple as "too lazy to get a real job" or "does too much drugs". --Jayron32 05:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

"It's not as simple as "not having enough money to pay for an apartment"." Well it depends on where you live. In Greece, either owning or renting a house or apartment comes with ever increasing taxation, and many people can no longer afford it. This is combined with the yearly reductions of pensions, low wages in most jobs, high unemployment, and price increases on many products. There is a reason the population of homeless people is increasing. Dimadick (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Could they afford just over the Greek border? Are there enough Greek speakers there to not have to learn a different language? Would there be discrimination? They did all fight each other not too long ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

While the above discussion is interesting, especially Medeis's experiences in NYC, it mostly doesn't directly address my question. How common is it for homeless shelters to charge a fee, even if it is a fairly nominal one? Does NYC? Other major US cities? Or maybe it is, as Kharon sort of suggests, a practice that is more common in certain countries rather than others. By personal observation, there are very few people sleeping rough or begging for money in Zurich. I know that both activities are illegal here, and I suspect vigorously enforced. (I've heard rumors that homeless people are subtly, or not-so-subtly, encouraged to take trains or buses to other countries, but I don't know how true that is.) However, the enforcement situation in Zurich is sort of beside the point. Mostly, I am just curious how common it is to charge fees for services to the homeless. Dragons flight (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Homeless shelter" is not a universally definable thing. You have the spectrum in the US from Section 8 housing (i.e., subsidized, with the remainder often paid by some other form of public income, like cash assistance or social security disability and flat out public housing to halfway houses where the residents may reside on charity with the expectation of eventually paying nominal rent, to state run emergency shelters for the homeless and battered wives, or Churches that open their doors during heatwaves and blizzards.

You are looking at short and long-term and public and private solutions on a municipality by municipality basis with various state and federal programs as well as charities providing help. It is not unusual for residents to pay a nominal fee (about %10 of the total the landlord gets from the state as in section 8) or to be required by the charity to do chores or to seek employment or be engaged in some rehabilitation activity. I know someone who got a month's rent and utilities paid by the Red Cross with the requirement of writing an application essay, being interviewed, and promising to pay the money back within a year.

The US tends to leave such matters to local authorities and institutions in a federal system with state and local authority rather than a homogenous, centralized, Napoleonic, one-botte-fits-all command economy. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Is is common to charge fees? According to Shelter, the main UK charity for all forms of homelessness and poor housing: "Many [night shelters] are free but some cost between £2 and £5 per night."[2] Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 16

How does history, especially old history, develop?

The past is unchangeable and non-productive. Any period of history has left a finite number of events and sources. Even if researchers still unearth previously unknown sources, eventually everything out there will have been discovered. So how will history be developing? --Qnowledge (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that "eventually everything out there will have been discovered"? How would anyone know that there's nothing left to discover? And don't forget that history is subject to interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that everything out there about, say, the Paleolithic Period in Britain, or even the Second World War, will one day be discovered, even if we won't know that. So if at some point nothing new comes up any longer, what happens to the respective branch of history then? --Qnowledge (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What happens is that historians will happily spend eternity evaluating and re-evaluating the data, interpretating and reinterpretating it, and coming up with new ideas on what it all means. Blueboar (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You might also be interested in our articles on historiography and historical method (including further links there). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

"Even if researchers still unearth previously unknown sources"

Besides written sources about the past (which often are of questionable quality), archaeologists discover human remains, remnants of buildings, fortifications, and settlements, artifacts from the material culture of various periods, or (in marine archaeology) sunken ships. There are many areas which have never been properly examined, and there are major and minor discoveries in every given year. These present new data for the historians, and in several cases past findings were re-examined with new methods. Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Franklinia alatamaha, commonly called the Franklin tree, and native to the Altamaha River valley in Georgia has been extinct in the wild since the early 19th century, but survives as a cultivated ornamental tree.

• The OP's premise is fatally flawed. The law of entropy guarantees that a full reconstruction of the past is impossible. This is easily demonstrable in the case of language. There is virtually no hope of reconstructing even as well-attested an entity as the Etruscan language where we have two numbers which we know must mean four and six, but are unsure of which is which. That says nothing of the relatives of the Ainu language or the Sumerian language whose existence implies whole continents full of forever dead tongues.

Even in the Romance_languages#Lexicon we have many words that existed in Latin but whose exact form we could not recover from the modern ones if Latin texts had not been preserved. Our article Vulgar_Latin_vocabulary cites the fact that "many classical [Latin words] have no reflex in Romance, such as an, at, autem, dōnec, enim, ergō, etiam, haud, igitur, ita, nam, postquam, quidem, quīn, quod, quoque, sed, utrum and vel. We have no idea how many words from PIE died out with no trace, even though we can reconstruct a large vocabulary for it.

Think of all the fossils, all the recently extinct plants and animals, all the dead civilizations that have been destroyed by time. Even the history of Arabia and Korea before the first millenium AD is largely lost due to dynastic and religious iconoclasm and damnatio memoriae. See, for instance the highly divisive history of Korea, with the Balhae#Fall_and_legacy as a sample. Look at the fates of Beirut, Palmyra, the Bamiyan Buddhas and The Twin Towers. The past is a foreign country, the most of which you can't get to from here. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I wasn't asking about EVERYTHING becoming KNOWN, but about a point when all that is discoverable is discovered and nothing new can emerge. What is undiscoverable will of course remain unknown. --Qnowledge (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your premise is illogical. There is no way to determine when you have reached the point when "all that is discoverable is discovered and nothing new can emerge". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You already said that. And I already answered you. We don't have to know it when that time is reached. Surely it will be noticed if nothing does emerge any more, even if some might think something could still emerge. I appreciate Blueboar's reply because they clearly seem to have got my point, and I'm also grateful to Dimadick for their informative post though it's not a direct answer to what I asked. --Qnowledge (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet you keep asking that illogical question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a pretty good question; Bugs never has anything relevant to add to questions like this, but as he says, history is "subject to interpretation", which means he thinks he can interpret it. A tip for the future: he can't, and you can ignore him. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said I would be the one interpreting it. Where you got that notion is anyone's guess. Professional historians do that kind of work. And since you're not nearly as dumb as I am, maybe you can explain how one would know there was nothing left to discover. For example, has the last book about the American Civil War been written yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Even after a point when no new data is likely to be discovered, the process of interpretation can continue. History isn't just a bunch of facts, it's a bunch of facts tied together by a story created by the historian. Maybe the storytelling part never ends.   Being a communist, I can't resist throwing in some Karl Marx. He thought that the flavour of story preferred by historians (or other producers of ideology) depends on the kind of economic relations prevailing during the time in which they write. They tend to see things in terms of the operating methods and prejudices of their time. See Historical Materialism and Ideology (Communpedia). -- Yours truly, Communpedia Tribal (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An example are the ever-evolving and often contradictory views of various historians about Abraham Lincoln. There is no way for the OP, or the user Adam Bishop, or anyone else, to know when the "final" book on Lincoln will be published. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree -- there are very few facts known to the 1960s "neo-abolitionist" revisionist historians of U.S. Reconstruction (such as Eric Foner) that weren't already known to the early 20th-century Dunning School historians (or that the Dunning School historians couldn't have found out for themselves with a little research if they had wanted to). The radical differences between the conclusions of the two groups of historians has a lot more to do with values than with a mere accumulation of facts. AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is actually part of the driving forces behind historical revisionism. New generations of historians re-examine the past and challenge or reject the views of their predecessors. In some cases, they examine areas of the past which their predecessors either overlooked or did not care about. One of our quotations on the article: "The result, as far as the study of history was concerned, was an awakened interest in subjects that historians had previously slighted. Indian history, black history, women’s history, family history, and a host of specializations arose."Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol syndrome

After reading the Fetal alcohol syndrome article, I was wondering is there any jurisdiction that criminalizes alcohol drinking by pregnant women? Mũeller (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Five US states: OK, MN, WI, ND, and SD have provisions in law that allow a pregnant woman who is found to have abused alcohol to be forcibly committed (i.e. locked up) until after the child is born. Roughly 2/3 of states have laws requiring that health care workers contact child protective services if they suspect a pregnant woman has endangered her child by consuming alcohol. In general, such laws are usually not criminal, but rather civil issues. The difference being that the mother is not being punished for a crime (i.e. no fines or confinement after birth), but rather the state is taking actions intended to protect the baby. Dragons flight (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A useful term to search with is "criminalization (or criminalisation) of pregnancy". A 2014 UK overview is here. An Amnesty International report on the situation in the USA is here. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean.

What does the phrase Wecelo Vriedach mean, in the context of the Frydag noble family, German and possibly swedish languages.

I can't find a translation for it, so it could be a real challenge. Thank you. scope_creep (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick google of Wecelo shows it's a German first/given name. Is it possible that Vriedach is the surname? (And possibly a corruption of Frydag). Nanonic (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly just a coincidence, possibly not, but весело (veselo) in Russian and probably other Slavic tongues means "happily, joyfully, merrily". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• This sort of variation in Slavic names of old provenance in Germanic versions is common. See Wenceslaus, which is Vaclav in Czech and Wenzel in German, or Vladimir which shows up as Waldemar or as Valdemar II of Denmark, and parallels the name Wilmer in English. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wezilo (and variations) appears to be a variant of the German name Werner. I’m no expert, but it seems to me that Vriedach is just a variant of Frydag (with v/u and f being used more or less interchangeably in older German texts, while the -ch appears to be a pronunciation respelling). Slightly off topic, but the interwiki links on Wikidata are, once again, a hopeless mess. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 22:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This source gives Wessel as a nickname for Werner (<Proto-Ger. Warin- Hari- "Guard Army"). But I'd like to see that derived in an onomastic dictionary rather than a site that comes up when you search for baby names. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I see it now. I think I was reading it wrongly. Vriedach was the first version, the base name, of it, the initial version which would eventually become Frydag or one of its many variants. Thanks Nanonic, Jack of Oz, μηδείς, ✦. scope_creep (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wecelo is unequivocally a Balto-Slavic name, coming from a root meaning, whole, kealthy, happy. See the sole reference of the Frydag dynasty, which says they are of Baltic origin, and the wiktionary entry wikt:veselo. Equating this to Werner, when the family is Baltic and the name is transparent in Latvian violates Ockham's Razor twice in making it a German name based on a nickname lacking a final vowel. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Wecelo was one of the more common first names in medieval Germany and is believed to be a diminutive form of the first name Wernher (see [3]), preserved in the German surnames :de:Wetzel and de:Wessel and in many names of towns like in :fr:Wasselonne (France). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

December 17

List of government agencies by forbidden terms?

Is there a current list of government agencies restricted from using specific terms, alongside a list of those terms for each such agency? Ref.[4] Thanks! SciHaus (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously governments always have and make such lists and directives. Such directives are usually only for internal use and only get public attention when a "whistleblower" and the press make it public. Its nothing new but simply professional Public relations you find in any government. --Kharon (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone study and keep track of them? SciHaus (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s unlikely that anyone studies them... an agency itself might keep track internally, but any list the agency keeps would not be published for public dissemination. Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In many countries, including the U.S., such lists are required by law to be published, are they not? I found Censorship_in_the_United_States#Political and scholarship on other countries at e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. SciHaus (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The article says "The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget." It doesn't say those words are prohibited totally - just in terms of begging the Congress for money. (This could be called right wing "political correctness".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders

Where exactly is the lemma taken from? As there is no corresponding German article and I couldn't find any respective source for a German equivalent, I would be very grateful for any assistance considering the origin of the term used here.--Rogot (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why it's called a "Columbus" globe? If this[9] is accurate, it sounds like it's a brand. And presumably named for Christopher Columbus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This article may be interesting. It seems that there was a Columbus factory / cartographer - presumably in Bavaria - which produced this (and a few more) globes. The firm was bombed in 1943 and its archives are lost. There does exist a manufacturer columbusglobus.de located in Ulm. As Bugs says, it is a trade name. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about the "for State and Industry Leaders" (in capitals!). That seems to indicate it is the official [translated] name, though – as I already said – I didn't manage to find a corresponding source that supports this thesis.--Rogot (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia article says that the original German name is Columbus Globus für staatliche und industrielle Führer. The relevant German Wikipedia article is de:Columbus_(Verlag)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 18

Turkish cross?

I am researching German bombing of the UK in the First World War. The use of Gotha bombers against London was called Operation Turkenkreuz, variously translated as "Turk's cross" or "Turkish cross". Question; is there such a thing as a Turkish cross and if so, what was its significance in Imperial Germany? Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If you google-image Türkenkreuz you'll see lots of pictures of crucifixes and the like, many pre-dating World War I. I haven't found anything that explains why it was called Türkenkreuz, but given the religious implications hinted by those crucifixes, Germany might have considered this mission to be "righteous" from their viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, de:Raaberkreuz. As explained in that article, these wayside shrines were also called "Türkenkreuze". Their construction was decreed by Rudolf II after the Austrian re-appropriation of Castle Győr (Raab in German) in 1598 which had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire (see also Long Turkish War). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking more closely at those Türkenkreuz images on Google, it seems like they are all or mostly "wayside shrines" as you've indicated. There's at least one in Wikipedia: thumb|right It was uploaded by Commons user Karl Gruber. He's German, but if he knows English maybe he could tell us more, include why it's called "Turk's" or "Turkish" - assuming that's what it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

According to the de-wiki article and the Old German cited there, these crosses were rebuilt after being torn down by "bad people" as a sign of the victory over the Osman (Turk) forces. Unfortunately neither this article nor de:Kampfgeschwader der Obersten Heeresleitung explain why the operation was called this, although it might be related to the first use of aerial bombs in the Italo-Turkish War. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly User:Sluzzelin, I think I must have mis-spelt my German Google search as it drew a blank. The de.Wikipedia entry is confirmed by this page which Google has translated as:

'A very strange and interesting speciality are the so-called Raaberkreuze, also commonly called Turkenkreuze. The Raab fortress was in the 16th century the main bastion against the Turks and a key point for Austria. It was therefore considered a tremendous disaster when in 1594 this fortress fell into the hands of the Turks. The general rejoicing was all the greater, when it was conquered again in March of the year 1598 by Baron Adolf von Schwarzenberg. Emperor Rudolf II issued a decree on April 25 of the same year that the stainern [?] or other cross and Marterl pillars on all roads, passports and separations [border posts?] to be replaced within two months with a painted crucifix and with the inscription either in the stone or on a metal plate: "Praise God to the Lord and thanks".'

German operation names often alluded to historic and nationalistic names, so this makes a lot of sense. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

These were the same Germans who told the Turks that the Kaiser had converted to Islam and declared jihad on the Allies. See Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Great Game and the Great War, and indeed Buchan's Greenmantle. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; however there was a good deal of doublespeak on all sides when dealing with prospective allies, viz Britain's role in inspiring the Arab Revolt for example. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I have added a brief note to our Wayside cross article, so that Turkenkreuze should show up in the unlikely event that anybody searches for it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Anatolia

When did Anatolia become more Turkic than Greek?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

According to the Anatolia article: "The Turkification of Anatolia began under the Seljuk Empire in the late 11th century..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Manzikert in 1071 was the tipping point; "The result of this disastrous defeat was, in simplest terms, the loss of the Eastern Roman Empire's Anatolian heartland" according to the Aftermath section of our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Before 1071 A.D., the center of the Greek-speaking region of the Byzantine Empire was actually in Anatolia (much more than in areas which are part of Greece today). This is discussed in the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there any rules or etiquette against segregating POWs by rank and splitting up units?

So each POW camp has a section with only enemy privates where the lowest-ranking unit and commander anyone has in common is a fairly high one not a low one like company or lieutenant, a camp section with only corporals (same thing) and so on and they can't talk through the fence to other sections or bang Morse Code or any other contact. So there's no one to give orders (besides voting a leader or something, everyone's rank being the same and all) and they have no camaraderie from fighting together or knowing each other. If people disagree about how or whether to try to escape they'd be more likely to bicker with the leader if they're the same rank. This doesn't seem very evil but I don't know all the treaties and etiquette for POWs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Third Geneva Convention, there is a link at the bottom of the page you can follow to read the exact wordings. Scanning, can see couple references to rank but you would want to read more thoroughly.70.67.222.124 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This purports to show the text of Article 4 of the United States Military Code of Conduct. The relevant part is "The senior POW (whether officer or enlisted) in the POW camp or among a group of POWs shall assume command according to rank without regard to Military Service. ... U.S. policy on POW camp organization requires that the senior military POW assume command." Whether or not it is the actual text, it makes sense that seniority would be used to decide between POWs of the same rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

During the Second World War Germany operated separate camps for officers (Oflag) and for other ranks (Stalag). In any camp, the senior person would have been expected to act as commanding officer - which in the case of a Stalag would have meant the seniot non-commissioned officer (probably a Sergeant-Major). Britain made the same distinction for German POWs in the UK. Wymspen (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoever operates the POW camp also has some interest in maintaining order and exercising effective control. That implies allowing for an effective command structure in the camp. It's a trade-off between easier oversight and control on the one side vs. a small increase in risk of coordinated resistance or escape. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 19

Why are the members of the US Congress almost always from just two parties?

I'm aware of this question, which mentions among other factors Duverger's law; however, the answers seem incomplete because not all countries with plurality voting and/or single representation systems generally result in two and only two parties electing legislators. Even in other countries that have two dominant parties and/or use a FPTP system, there still tends to be at least some legislators that are either independent or not from the dominant parties. Why then are third-party legislators in the United States much rarer than in other countries with FPTP and/or two-party dominant systems? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

One reason the UK has so many parties is that the Scots want a party, the Welsh want a party, the Catholics in occupied Ireland want a party, the Protestants want a party, the less conservative Protestants want a party, the centrist Englanders want a party and the parliamentary system allows them to do that. Also, you can get fired for not voting with your party's majority (I think) while you can't in America which further encourages more parties in Britain. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Two-party system#Causes talks about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If you see two parties, you're looking at it wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

One party's senators say global warming's bullshit and the other has $15 minimum wage in its platform. Are they really more similar than they're different? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The apparent differences are manufactured to promote discontent. People feel more involved in voting when they're voting against something they don't like or to protect something they do. Makes the skirmishing seem worthwhile. If one side had too many negative associations, it'd fail, so they divvy them up carefully, ensuring a constant loop of yesbutism in the public sphere that's singularly devoted to them. All part of the United States Chamber of Commerce's scaly (as in balanced) agenda. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think some of the Senators and Representatives actually believe conservatism or liberalism to some extent. They're probably smart enough to not believe the stupidest things of each side though (i.e. vaccines cause autism). It's the ones that just pick the home team (i.e. live in Hawaii = Democrat) and pander to get in power or fencesit and flipflop that are alike. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the 2 main parties always managed to prevent a splitup of their branch or wing by being very inclusive. To illustrate this its interesting to compare the scenario with that of the House of Representatives (Japan) where the Liberal Democratic Party almost exclusively ruled with huge majority since 1955 and/because the opposition is so fragmented that it does not manage compete against that, even in coalitions. I seems both US parties where smart and lucky enough to prevent a scenario change till now. --Kharon (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• The answer is simple. There is one party, with two wings; the establishment and the incumbents. To mutual advantage, the Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered safe seats in most districts. The US Federal Election Commission has three Republican seats, and three Democratic seats. This extra-Constitutional body sets election guidelines, and famously decided after the 1992 election, in which Ross Perot was included in the debates, that any third-party candidate garnering at least 5% of polling nationally would be included in future debates. In 1996, Perot was polling well above this, but was arbitrarily excluded by the commission's declaration that Perot was not a "serious" candidate.

In most states the setup is the same. The Democrats and the Republicans often automatically get ballot slots, while third parties face onerous burdens getting signatures from each voting district to petition to be on the ballot. These petitions are often sabotaged by false-flag signature "collectors" and prohibitively expensive lawsuits challenging and disqualifying the petition results. State party committees arbitrarily keep candidates of the ballot, like Pat Buchanan in 1996 in NY State when he tried to mount a primary challenge against the anointed establishment choice, Bob Dole. Once in power, third-party winners like Jesse Ventura find neither party will support their agenda. The US basically has an unconstitutional establishment of party, by which the system is rigged in favor of the incumbents in every way possible. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Federal Communications Commission is directed by Republicans and Democrats, too, appointed by Democrats and Republicans. You can find them talking about each other on most every basic channel, but if you want alternative views, you need to buy a speciality (or better yet, premium) package. This pricing plan allows people like Brian L. Roberts to claim nonpartisanship by donating thousands of dollars to "both" parties, as well as providing "both" with the sort of omnipresent platform that keeps "them" at around 75 million members to the Libertarians' 500,000. You don't see such political crap in Canadian TV's shadowy cabal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

There may have been a few more third party Representatives and Senators now if this wasn't the case but do you think there'd be close to a 3-way split in the legislature but 2-way in the executive? The Founding Fathers required a majority of Electoral College votes to avoid being decided by the House (also 50%+1) because they wanted a President with broad appeal, not the kind of thing that happened in 1860 when the South started seceding pre-inauguration cause each layer of Southness picked a different President and Lincoln won. If there were 3 major parties Republicans would win less often and the Centrist Party would win more often than anyone if the voters didn't screw up the tricky game theory-like game. Otherwise, a Bernie Sanders-like guy would win with not much over 33% every so often. Would you be okay with that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If you assume that voters have preferences described by a single linear dimension, there is no advantage in forming a "Centrist Party". You do better by taking a position just to one side of the other party, and sniping all the voters to that side.

The reason that more than two parties can succeed is that voters' preferences are not in fact one-dimensional. Somehow, in the United States, the multidimensional space of preferences has been projected along a single, not very well-motivated "left–right" axis, and though that axis makes no philosophical sense whatsoever, it seems to have a distressing amount of staying power. I don't really know why. Answer that question, and maybe the original question will also become clear. Or not. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How would you suggest it could move to a more philosophically accurate system like a 2-axes system without proportional representation? Could a 4-party system work for a President instead of a Prime Minister? Even removing the majority requirement from Electoral College votes would require a Constitutional amendment. There were only 2 parties at the very beginning and periods of fracturing and realignment into 2 different parties so it certainly has staying power. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's always been the tube. 42 years later, it's just gone serial. If bicentennial Americans were reluctant about turning off a TV mid-sentence, the millennials are damn sure not about to voluntarily disconnect from Wi-Fi or delete their Facebooks while everyone else stays in the loop. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

• The OP has been answered with relevant facts and links. It is not our place to wander off into "How would you suggest it could move to a more philosophically accurate system like a 2-axes system without proportional representation?" land. Ref Desk, not message board. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pope Adrian IV

Was Pope Adrian IV of Norman descent or is he considered of Anglo-Saxon descent? Would he have spoken Middle English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.38.154 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The ODNB says "a web of myth surrounds his origins, and no doubt much is later tradition woven at the great abbey of St Albans. But the following facts seem reliable. He was born in or near St Albans (Matthew Paris says he came from Abbots Langley) and was given the name of Nicholas. His father was Richard, as is certainly stated in a contemporary calendar of obits, not Robert (de Camera) as Matthew Paris says; allegedly and probably a priest, Richard later became a monk of St Albans. He may have been a married priest, for during the course of Pope Adrian IV's struggle against the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, it was widely proclaimed by imperial propagandists that this was so. Nicholas had a brother, Ranulf or Randulf, clerk of Feering, Essex, a church in the patronage of the abbot and convent of Westminster, who alleged that Ranulf retained it after he had become an Augustinian canon at Missenden." So, it seems that we don't really know much about his origins. I've seen it argued in other fora that he is more likely to have been of Saxon than Norman descent, but nothing that we could regard as a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

His alleged birthplace is Bedmond, a little village about a mile away from Abbots Langley and a gentle afternoon's walk (five miles or so) from St Albans in the other direction. Seems a bit of a lowly place for a Norman only 40 years after the Conquest, but that's a bit circumstantial. I found Nicholas Breakspear: Englishman and Pope by Tarleton, Alfred Henry, (London, 1896) which starts by saying: "The records of his origin are conflicting and scanty...". Alansplodge (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

He left England at some point before 1137, and it's very doubtful whether you can really talk about Middle English existing at that time. These periodizations are a bit arbitrary, so that for example our article on Middle English can't decide whether it began in 1100 or 1150, but it only gives a reference for the latter date, and most scholars would date the transition of Old English to Middle English to somewhere around 1150. So the question is whether he spoke Late Old English, Anglo-Norman or both, and I'm afraid no-one can definitively answer it for you. --Antiquary (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Now I've edited the Middle English article – 1150ed it up. --Antiquary (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What actually divides Western and Eastern Europe?

Is there some kind of mountain range between the two? Or are they different because of the Cold War and Communism? 140.254.70.225 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

One division was religion-based, which was long before the Commies came along. Read Western Europe and its "See also" links for some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly the Iron Curtain line though, Poland's very Catholic and Religion in the Czech Republic is more Western than Eastern Christianity (to the extent that religion has survived which isn't too much). Northeast Germany switched sides after the unpleasantness transferred it to Poland. Greece was geographically and religiously Eastern but Iron Curtain west. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think religion is a strong criteria. Yes, Russia is traditionally mostly Russian Orthodox, but Poland is as Catholic as France (was) or Spain, while the Czechs had a significant early Protestant (Hussite) population. More relevant might be that most of Western Europe was part of the Western Roman and/or the Holy Roman Empires, with mostly Germanic and Romanic or Romanised populations, while Eastern Europe was more influenced by Byzantium and even Asian powers like the Mongols, and has mostly Slavic populations and languages. Western Europe also has better access to the oceans, and hence came to prominence during the age of discoveries and the rise in overseas trade, while Eastern Europe was more isolated. But historically, the difference has not been so strong - it really became cemented after WW2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• What divides Western and Eastern Europe?Central Europe. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Relevant articles at Regions of Europe and Europe#Definition. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Also: Iron curtain 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What divides Europe and Asia? Or Asia and Africa? Or North and South America? Or countries? These are all social constructs. They are what humans say they are, and they can and do change over time. As others have noted, common dividing criteria include the division between centum and satem languages, religious differences, and once belonging to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. None of these are themselves a definitive way of carving things up, because we're talking about nebulous, messy human categorizations. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• No one has linked to Eastern Europe so far; the lead of that article quotes this page which puts it: "Unfortunately, there are almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region." --Theurgist (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Was the Roman Senate always in the Capital?

I've been trying to find an answer to this either on Wikipedia or otherwise online, but I've had no luck. The capital of the Western Roman Empire moved a couple times as rulers of the late empire chose to make different cities home to their primary residence. But when an Emperor declared a new capital, did the senate move with him? Was the Roman senate ever in Milan or Ravenna, or did it stay put? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Rome remained the seat of the Roman Senate..." — Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf (2010). Ravenna in Late Antiquity: AD; 7. Ravenna capital: 600-850 AD. Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780521836722.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Awesome. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

We actually have a detailed article on the Roman Senate, which explains that the Senate remained in the city of Rome until last mentioned in 603. In 630, the Curia Julia (the building used for Senate sessions) was converted into a church, probably signifying that the Senate had ceased to exist. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I see now Curia#Senate_House contains information on the three main Curias, which were all in Rome. And I did read that article, actually. I just felt like, with the movement of the capital not being mentioned at all in that article, I wasn't sure if the movement of the senate either never happened, or was omitted. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 20

Artwork

I've been unsuccessfully googling for one fantasy painting seen several years ago. The style, craftsmanship and subject are similar to Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo, showing a naked long-haired brunette face on, standing waist-deep in a dark swamp, eyes closed. Several dark, outlandish hands are emerging from the swamp, partially covering her breasts. Perhaps a relatively known artist. Just a link would suffice. Brandmeister^talk 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe like this one? Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Slightly similar, but not that. Hope to retrieve the mag I saw it in some day. Brandmeister^talk 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar, but not. There she stands waist-deep approximately. Brandmeister^talk 10:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Chinese makeup Song Dynasty

What is this form of make up called and any information on what it was? A lot of Song Dynasty empresses seem to sport it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Plum blossom makeup" (meihua zhuang) -- Info on Pinterest:[10], (but I don't want to "sign up to see more"). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC) ... However, I think that primarily relates to the forehead decoration shown there. The overall style is only described as "ceremonial" here: Society of the Song dynasty #Women: legality and lifestyles

Sea-bee (creature)

Not sure if the Reference Desk is the right place to raise issues like this, but I am a bit suspicious about the veracity of this article. It lacks an image (which seems like a must for heraldry articles), and while there is a citation, it's to a journal issue with no date, author, or article title given, making it hard to track down. Can anyone who has access to the relevant "Coat of Arms" journal issue confirm this, and maybe get an image? I cannot find anything else online either. I'm also posting this on the article's talk page. 169.228.153.91 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right. It is already tagged as stub (see its categories (Heraldry stubs)). You can either fill it with better description, references and pictures or process it according our Wikipedia:Deletion process. --Kharon (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 21

Did Bangladesh and Burma ever fight each other in ancient times?

These two nations are beside each other. Have Bangladesh and Myanmar ever fought each other in ancient times? If so, when was it? 99.239.236.168 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, there was no "Bangladesh" or "Burma" in ancient times. For example, see: History of Rakhine & Pagan Kingdom —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The article on Military history of Myanmar includes several references to conflicts between states which were in what is now Myanmar and and others which were in what is now Bangladesh. Just check for references to Bengal in that article - Bengali rulers do seem to have meddled in the affairs of their neighbours from time to time. Wymspen (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Knowing human nature... if you point to any group of people, you will find that they have fought with their neighbors at some point in time. Towns fight with neighboring towns... tribes fight with neighboring tribes... ethnic groops fight with neighboring ethic groups, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 22

Millenials in other nations

In the article "Millenials", you only mentioned Millenials in US, which supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primaries in 2016 and Millenials in UK, which they were known for Bremain also in 2016. What about their counterparts in France, Germany, and other nations? What were they famous for? Donmust90 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Donmust90, Millenials is pretty much an Anglophone concept. Other countries probably don't have "Millenials", because they go through the generations in a different way than someone from the Anglophone world. Hence, people in other countries don't need an exact equivalent concept for Millenials. SSS (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok... but that leaves the core of Don’s question unanswered. Whatever the generation that is just coming of age may be called, are there political and social trends that they are identified with? Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading the Baby Boomer generation a while ago. IIRC, the Baby Boomer generation was the first generation to recognize themselves as "one generation" with respect to social and political trends; and this group decides to pave the way for the generations before them and the generations after them. Clicking around on Wikipedia, a similar sociopolitical generation occurs in China, where the young, relatively rich and comfy generation born after the one-child policy differs starkly from the parental generation (who probably lived through the rise of the Communist Party and the Cultural Revolution). SSS (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. According to our articles, the term Silent Generation dates to 1951 and Lost Generation pre-dates 1926. How much generation mutual feeling there was I don't know but the terminology is older than the Boomers. Rmhermen (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Are accusations of hypocrisy or double standard inherently opinions?

Since every situation is unique in one way or another, anyone could claim that their own context is sui generis and, so their own respective action is somehow special and does not contradict the principles, ideals, or laws they claim to uphold. Does this make logical sense? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you condemn redheads who rob banks and praise blondes who rob banks, then your double standard is evident; and if you are a redhead who robs banks, then your hypocrisy is evident. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the biggest island people are pretty sure has never seen (non-cold) war?

Antarctica might win but it's a continent. Devon Island is currently the world's largest uninhabited island but perhaps too close to the Inuit to be sure. Is it one of the relatively few islands that weren't discovered till the last handful of centuries or so? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)