Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:14, 23 August 2020

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

August 16

Wearing an elephant scalp

There are a bunch of ancient coins showing rulers with an elephant scalp. Obviously an elephant head is much larger than the human one, yet the coins show it fitting well on the head. Same goes for bear and lion scalps of signifers which also seem too large to fit the head nicely. Why is that? Perhaps some shrinkage after artificially drying the scalp? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these guys were literally wearing shrunken elephant heads? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Elephant scalp" is the correct description of this headdress: see The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal: Volume 14, 1986 (p. 36), Roman Imperial Coinage II.3: From AD 117 to AD 138 - Hadrian (p. 194) and Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (p. 111). The first coins with this imagery were issued by Ptolemy I Soter in the late 3rd or early 4th century BC, showing Alexander the Great wearing one, probably to symbolise his conquest of India. [1]

The Getty source linked above suggests that it was probably a helmet made to look like an elephant's head. Until somebody digs-up an actual example, this can only be conjecture. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this looks like a teapot crafted by an early Viking mad hatter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sir Billy Connolly looks like a Viking and almost certainly has Viking DNA, and he notably wrote: "Never trust a man who, when he's alone in a room with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on" (Thoughts That Sustain Me). That's all the imprimatur anybody needs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Even if they shrunk the elephant head, the tusks wouldn’t just shrink. It’d have to be a young elephant, but I suspect e d almostven their heads would be too large. It was probably hammered metal. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It need not have been a real object at all (what would have been the occasion to wear something like this?), but may just have been a symbolic and mythologising representation on coins and in other formats. It is certainly reminiscent of representations of Heracles wearing the lion scalp (the coins shown here pre-date Alexander). --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of Green Bay Packers fans wearing giant wedges of cheese on their heads, yet they are not actually made of cheese. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I mean, do you seriously think you just contributed in any meaningful way to answering the question? --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think the figures on those coins were wearing real animal scalps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my contribution above I stated clearly what I think. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, and the wearing of odd things on the head is a long-standing practice - both ancient on nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing to say, then don't say it here. --Lambiam 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just ridiculous. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had thought I was reinforcing your point and informing the OP. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!--Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, Roman Standard Bearers are recorded and depicted as having worn real lion or bear skins, with the head-part on top of their helmets. [2] However, wearing an actual elephant's head seems infinitely improbable. Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was R. SAUERWALD?

R. SAUERWALD . Improvements in electric batteries . GB patent 10904 , 1888. ^[1]. He made galvanometer in Berlin^[2].

Does anyone know him? TIA. Horus1927 19:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

References

A quick search suggests that the "Sauerwald galvanometer" mentioned in your second source was manufactured by the firm of F. Sauerwald and not the R. Sauerwald to whom that patent issued. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are interested in F. Sauerwald, I believe you may find an article celebrating his 70th birthday giving a short biography (in German) at doi:10.1002/zfch.19640040602. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

State leaders continuously reelected in fair elections

What state/country leaders have been reelected multiple times in fair elections owing to consistent genuine popular support? By "multiple" let's say three or more times (except FDR). Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., no President has served more than 2 terms except FDR. Records of heads of state would be a good place perhaps to start looking for longest serving heads of state who survived multiple elections. --Jayron 32 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Merkel (though of course most voters in German federal elections did not vote for her individually). AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and that's the thing right? In many parliamentary systems, the functional political leader of the country (Prime Minister, Premier, Chancellor, etc.) is not directly elected to that post; they are a member of the national parliament who is elevated to the role in a second election nominally by the parliament itself, but functionally by the majority party or coalition in that body. In the UK, for example, it is common enough for a Prime Minister to get their post completely separate from a general election; Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Gordon Brown, and John Major (four of the last six PMs) all became PM after the preceding PM resigned, and not after a general election. In terms of "winning" three consecutive general elections in the UK, the last to do so was Margaret Thatcher, and before her only Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool and Robert Walpole served as PM through more elections, being 4 each. William Pitt the Younger also served through 3 elections. --Jayron 32 13:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the modern era in the UK it's not "completely separate from a general election." If there is a party leadership contest, this is typically done before a general election, so that the electorate gets to vote for a party representative, knowing who will become PM if that party wins. Mechanisms for choosing the leader vary between parties. Whether that's really true "democracy" is another question. Occasionally, of course, things don't happen in that order. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process is completely separate, as can be seen for 2 reasons. 1 - there are party leadership contests for parties not currently in Government, so in this case there would not be an election except by chance. 1 - there have been many leadershop changes of the party currently governing with no general election soon after. Examples include Alec Douglas-Hume, Jim Callaghan, John Major, Gordon Brown, Teresa May and even Boris, who called an election about 5 months after being elected leader.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted already, four of the last six PMs became PM completely outside of a general election. Including the last two. So yes, going back as far as the 1990s, most of the modern Prime Ministers became Prime Minister initially through an internal party process, and not due to a general election. There were later general elections during their terms, but they still did not assume the office because their party won an immediately preceding general election. --Jayron 32 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see the proportions, across all parties, for the last 100 years. I have not made the effort to do the sums. Perhaps it's just the way I have perceived party leader elections during my lifetime. Party Conferences are another factor, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy enough to reconstruct. Going back to 1920, the prime minister and how they got the post the first time are: 1) David Lloyd George (Resignation of previous PM, no intervening election) 2) Bonar Law (election) 3) Stanley Baldwin (resignation) 4) Ramsay Macdonald (election) 5) Stanley Baldwin (election) 6) Ramsay Macdonald (election) 7) Stanley Baldwin (election) 8) Neville Chamberlain (resignation) 9) Winston Churchill (resignation) 10) Clement Atlee (election) 11) Winston Churchill (election) 12) Anthony Eden (election) 13) Harold Macmillian (resignation) 14) Alec Douglas-Home (resignation) 15) Harold Wilson (election) 16) Edward Heath (election) 17) Harold Wilson (election) 18) James Callaghan (resignation) 19) Margaret Thatcher (election) 20) John Major (resignation) 21) Tony Blair (election) 22) Gordon Brown (resignation) 23) David Cameron (election) 24) Theresa May (resignation) 25) Boris Johnson (resignation). So there you go, 25 distinct Prime Ministerial terms, 12 of which began with the resignation of the prior office holder, and 13 of which began after a general election. That's as close to 50/50 as you can get with an odd number. --Jayron 32 17:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jayron, for spelling it out. None seems quite as bizarre and unfair as the current situation. But the electorate have spoken. Even if they didn't quite know what they were saying... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case of "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it?" --Jayron 32 15:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then some. Be Very Careful What You Vote For. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In which states is are ministers competitively elected by the parliament? In Westminster, as I misunderstand, the head of state appoints someone to form a cabinet, and that person becomes prime minister upon vote of confidence by the parliament. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of state governors of the United States would be a place to start researching U.S. state governors in case you wanted that. Many states have term limits as well, limiting how many consecutive terms a governor may serve. --Jayron 32 13:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urho Kekkonen was President of Finland who served four consecutive terns between 1956 and 1982. Note that the Constitution of Finland was reformed starting at the end of Kekkonen's last term, reducing the power of the presidency, introducing a two-term limit and combining a popular vote with the electoral college system which had kept Kekkonen in power. He wasn't always terribly popular, but in the Cold War, Finland lived under the threatening shadow of the USSR and he was believed to be useful in keeping Moscow sweet, while other candidates were thought likely to rock the boat. "And always keep ahold of nurse / For fear of finding something worse". Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purely for my own amusement, a look at List of prime ministers of Italy shows that there were 29 premiers of that country during Kekkonen's tenure :-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistent genuine popular support" is a tough thing to gauge. Did Fidel Castro have consistent genuine popular support? Did William Lyon Mackenzie King? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie King's Liberal Party was defeated rather badly in the 1930 election. They did regain control in 1935 and for the next three elections, but I wouldn't call their support "consistent". He served during World War II, and few of the major world democracies changed leadership during the war itself once things got going. It probably was a special case, and King's fortunes waxed and waned as any does. --Jayron 32 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kuan Yew may be a candidate, with 8 consecutive election wins and 31 continuous years as Prime Minister of Singapore (after which he stepped down, though he continued in lesser ministerial offices for a further 25 years). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.25.153 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the winner by a long way is Sir Thomas Playford IV, who was Premier of South Australia for over 26 years continuously (1938-1965) and led his party to 8 election victories on the trot, failing on the 9th. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you really want to look for politicians popular enough to be elected many times, you want to consider lower levels of government. Hazel McCallion in Mississauga comes to mind, and Édouard Herriot in Lyon, France. (Hmm, his infobox needs fixing.) But they were excluded by the terms of the question, so I don't need to have posted this. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of U.S. governors, Terry Branstad has the longest service, but did his in two stints, as did most of the people on the 50 longest serving governors in U.S. history. The longest consecutive streak with no breaks seems to belong to Arthur Fenner of Rhode Island and Albert Ritchie of Maryland, each with 15+ years of service in a row. Branstad actually beats that with a 16 year run in his first stint, followed by a 6 year run later on. --Jayron 32 15:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered best by mainstream economists deflation (NOT hyperdeflation) or Hyperinflation?

What is considered best by mainstream economists deflation (NOT hyperdeflation) or Hyperinflation? 2804:7F2:594:4C46:1A9:6F7A:B358:2544 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are desirable, as both cause significant economic disruption. Deflation encourages hoarding and discourages consumer spending, while hyperinflation devalues the currency itself. It's kind of like asking whether you want to die by firing squad or guillotine - you're still gonna be dead either way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically this. Both are bad. Deflation might be "less bad" in the short term but they're both going to wreck your economy. I suppose if the question is "which is easier to correct" a better answer might be forthcoming, though it probably depends on the degree of deflation versus the degree of hyperinflation, how you define those terms, and the economic controls available to the relevant economy. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to favor deflation, for the simple reason that it can be just a fraction of a percent drop in prices, whereas hyperinflation is — by definition —- very large movements. Now, if you want to compare “equal” price movements, then inflation is the one we know how to beat into submission. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deflation is considered terrible because it makes everyone stop spending money. Economic policymakers tend to aim for around 2% annual inflation from what I hear. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this: after the Lost Decade (Japan), which is generally considered the worst and longest case of deflation in the past 100 years, Japan was basically fine -- a wealthy society with a good democracy and a stable society. But basically every country that has faced hyperinflation in the past 100 years, society has been wrecked. --M @r ē ino 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, solid point. It helps (a lot) if your deflating economy also has a contracting labor force.DOR (HK) (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

Humans are bad at risk

Imagine that there is a pandemic going on, and I do something that I know puts me at some risk for getting infected (e.g., attend a large gathering). But the risk is small, and I don't get sick - this time. If we take the same risk several times, and we don't get harmed, then pretty soon, then I realistically expect that we will start thinking that the actual risk has declined. But the risk hasn't changed. The fact that someone doesn't experience a 1:100 outcome in 10 exposures doesn't prove that it's not a 1:100 risk.

Or, we all wear masks to the store, and nobody gets sick, so we start thinking that masks are unnecessary because nobody's getting sick. We see this in vaccines, too: Almost nobody gets measles, so there's no need for a measles vaccine anymore, right?

There must be a name for this phenomenon. What's the name, and what's the best Wikipedia article about this? (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Faulty generalization? BirdValiant (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely connected -- but if anything the Gambler's fallacy is the opposite! The gambler's fallacy says that, over time, the probability of the rare event (i.e., winning a jackpot) is supposed to increase. But here we're talking about the (equally invalid) notion that since the improbable thing still hasn't happened, it must be getting even less probable. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant and roughly opposite is the Ecological fallacy. Just because the average chance of contracting the disease for a particular type of behavior is 1/100, doesn't mean that the chance is 1/100 for a particular individual engaging in that behavior. And it is often reasonable to change one's opinion based on Empirical evidence, though it can be tricky to determine how much empirical evidence is needed.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The black swan theory purports to explain, among other things, the psychological biases that blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event's massive role in historical affairs. These same cognitive biases are also at work for less exceptional things. As the optimist said who fell off a skyscraper, as he zoomed past the tenth floor, "so far so good". Some relevant external links: [3]; [4]; [5]. --Lambiam 08:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A classic essay on the phenomenon -- although I don't believe it gives it a name -- is this one, by Richard Feynman.

Another related phenomenon is Risk compensation. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" links at Risk compensation are all suggestive, but none of them exactly describe the phenomenon being asked about. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be called "immortality delusion", for which young people are especially notorious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a hard-to-believe (is this for real?) risk assessment fail, check this out. --Lambiam 13:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that Tversky and Kahneman touched on risk assessment in their work on heuristics in decision-making back in the 1970s. See Heuristics in judgment and decision-making. There's also a big research base on risk-taking in driving e.g. see Risk compensation#Road transport and Jonah (1986). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, the closest Wikipedia article to that idea that I could find is Young invincibles. There probably ought to be one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optimism bias is involved, but also in your examples, the birthday paradox. If the likelihood of an infection between transmitted between two people coming into contact is p, then between N people in a room (all coming into contact with each other), it's approx. p·N²/2 and people don't recognize that quadratic growth. Thus the superspreader events in bars, churches, and (now) schools. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea that "the sooner everyone gets it the better". Early on this was a policy option discussed by Boris Johnson, I think. Just one facet of the UK government's "clear messaging" strategy? Akin to the notion of the old-fashioned pox party which still continues, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except they can't keep you alive until you recover if there's no hospital bed, doctor, or equipment and medicine necessary to do so. Whether or not the same number of people will end up getting it in the end is irrelevant if more people die that could have survived if there was room at the hospital for them. --Jayron 32 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notion was more one "acceptable level of losses" i.e. let all the old and at risk die off quickly. Sorry for the WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Martinevans123 the "herd immunity" proposal seems to have been advanced by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and his chums. [6] It seems a bit harsh to blame Boris for acting on the advice of his adviser. Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the "pro-life" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe thé term you"re looking for is normalization of deviance 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:4FB:4322:1642:1DC9 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, creeping normality, boiling frog, etc. --Jayron 32 17:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be really, really helpful if we knew for certain that no one will get this damn virus more than once. But, we don’t. Not even close. Hence, “herd immunity” this year is more of a “Gee, sorry Grandma.” DOR (HK) (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the virus may mutate and come back with a vengeance, as happened in the 1918 flu pandemic, which deserves to be called the "U.S. Army flu". --Lambiam 10:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! I'm not finding the name in recent review articles about COVID-19, but it is discussed in sources such as [7]. Thank you all, and please keep posting interesting links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean links like Prevention paradox? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wapo article about this today.[8] The behaviour doesn't seem to have a specific name in it, but the idea is that people respond differently to near-term vs faraway rewards or risk. I gues behavioural economics also studies these paradoxes. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't outsourcing a thing before the late 20th century?

Why wasn't outsourcing (as in, sending jobs to other, cheaper countries to save money/costs) a thing before the late 20th century? Companies over the last several decades have become huge fans of outsourcing jobs--especially to the developing world--but I haven't heard of companies actually engaging in this practice much before the late 20th century even though it might have, for instance, made economic sense for early 20th century British or German industrialists to move some of their factories and jobs to cheaper places such as Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, and/or the Ottoman Empire. So, why didn't this happen? Futurist110 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course outsourcing happened. It was just called colonialism and most of the exported jobs were agricultural rather than industrial since the destination nations often lacked the educational infrastructure to provide industrial laborers or skilled workers. As to getting work done in Russia instead of Britain, I kind of suspect that any cost savings would've been minimal and consumed by the cost of postage/telegrams, as well as fraud, waste, and abuse. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics... until the mid 20th century, most of the world's steal was produced in the UK, US and Germany, and it took a LOT of steal to build a factory. Why incur the costs of shipping the steal needed to build a factory all the way to India or Russia when you could simply build the factory at home, close to the iron works? Besides, in an era when unions were just getting started, the difference in labor costs wasn't all THAT much. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although thievery was (and remains) common, I believe you meant "steel". 2606:A000:1126:28D:4010:D10A:69ED:7785 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more obvious and less popular ourtsourcings here in Australia has been call centres. The clear reason this couldn't happen earlier was an absence of suitable telecommunications. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- in a sense there was. The U.S. textile industry originated in New England, but most mills were transferred to southern U.S. states starting in the late 19th century, and then were transferred to 3rd-world countries beginning in the 1960s. Of course, the full development of outsourcing depended on containerized shipping, GATT and other trade agreements, and later on the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One word: Containerization! oh, and transportation time/costs in general, too. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course outsourcing was a thing before the twentieth century, it just wasn't known by that name. Lots of pre-modern economic theories had outsourcing as a key component. Mercantilism is built upon the outsourcing of certain tasks (resource extraction and raw material production) to colonial territories and the protection of other tasks (final product manufacture) to the home country. Large parts of Adam Smith's writing deal with outsourcing even though he doesn't use the word he clearly understands the concepts and deals with it extensively in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations. Especially in Book Four, where he goes in depth on protectionism and the attempts by nations to prevent outsourcing of certain industries. And remember, he wrote that in the 18th century. --Jayron 32 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For countries with empires, there was a vested interest in keeping manufacturing at home and then using overseas territories as captive markets. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but where local labor was more expensive, resource extraction was often outsourced as it was less expensive to obtain the raw materials from outside the home nation, and import those. Remember the word "outsourcing" is a term d'art for anti-globalists and protectionists that just means "imports"; every item or product or resource that was not made inside your countries borders means some one else outside your country's borders was paid for it. It's a fun politically charged word to use when someone is feeling particularly xenophobic, but it just means "imports". Goods and services can only be produced in two places: inside one's own borders or outside them. They're either domestic goods and services or imported goods and services. All imported goods and services have "outsourced" labour, for logical reasons. --Jayron 32 16:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but our outsourcing article has a rather narrower definition. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Outsourcing is really more about importing of services rather than goods, so it does have some important distinctions in a service-based economy, and I do agree that in the modern economy, the concept of "outsourcing" services is much more prevalent, but also not entirely unheard of as a concept even in earlier centuries. Banking, for example, was often outsourced, major European banks were often based in Florence (Medici Bank), Augsburg (Fugger family and Welser family), or the Netherlands (Amsterdam Wisselbank, Clifford family). --Jayron 32 17:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a fun politically charged word to use when someone is feeling particularly xenophobic, but it just means "imports"." That seems needlessly accusatory. I'm sure I've seen lots of companies describe what they are doing as outsourcing, lots of outsourcing doesn't involve offshoring, and if someone was feeling "particularly xenophobic", I would think there are far more pejorative terms they could use. Iapetus (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the higher-ups use that term, it has positive connotations because it's about cutting costs. When worker bees use that term, it's typically derogatory - and for the same reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Request for info on Polish noms-de-guerre

Hi! I'm trying to find information on the noms-de-guerre used by the Polish resistance during WW2.

In particular, I want to know if there were any conventions about what words and names could be used, or was it just a case of finding a name that represented something you like? Or were names given by someone else (and if so, who)?

Does anyone know where I could find any info on this? Thank you in advance.

PrincessPersnickety (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Komorowski apparently chose his own name, Bór ("forest"), see Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates (p. 4562) and Who's Who in Twentieth Century Warfare (p. 32). Didn't find much else I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansplodge, thank you for taking the time to answer. I really appreciate it. PrincessPersnickety (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Home Army mentions the above "Forest" for Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski and also "Bear" for Leopold Okulicki. The relevant references may give more information. There may be a Polish reference desk where you can post a query (but the link under languages goes to a WP page which seems dormant since 2008). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janina Forbertówna: "Jasia";^[9] Bolesław Kowalski: "Ryszard".^[10] Very likely these books contain more examples, but I can only see snippets. --Lambiam 15:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Tarnawski: Upłaz.^[11] Wanda Krahelska-Filipowicz: Alinka or Alicja. Category:Polish resistance members of World War II and its subcategories may lead to more wartime codenames; that way the very first one I tried gave me Jadwiga Apostoł: Barbara Spytkowska. --Lambiam 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Lambiam and Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM :) PrincessPersnickety (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French officer Gustave Bertrand worked with the Biuro Szyfrów (Polish Cipher Bureau, that cracked Enigma) during WW2 and had the Polish codename Bolek. This codename was purportedly also used by Lech Wałęsa in the 1970s: see Lech Wałęsa#Wałęsa_and_secret_police. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The flag on "flag of Belarus" is wrong.

Someone changed it to the white and red flag. 42.113.60.40 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone fixed the error 6 minutes after someone else had made it. --Jayron 32 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you might have to change it back again if Alexander Lukashenko gets kicked out. Bets anyone? Alansplodge (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." From the instructions at the top of the page. --Jayron 32 16:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Pretend it was a rhetorical question (my money is on under 48 hours). Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Alexander Lukashenko --2606:A000:1126:28D:F936:DCD9:CC6E:A4F9 (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: 16:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) so do we need to send our PayPal account details to you or.....? Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All bets are off Nil Einne, the bugger is still there! Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Hunter-gatherer vs. farmer evolutionary psychology

Is Andreas Hofer's theory of hunter-gatherer vs. farmer traits in human psychology based on accurate characterizations of hunter-gatherer and farmer societies? 2601:644:100:9F20:7945:B5E9:A888:6718 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Andreas Hofer you have in mind is probably not the Andreas Hofer you linked to... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever this is, it is not a scholarly work. Like most pop psychology texts fixated on classifying people into personality types, it advances an unverifiable theory. We have no way of evaluating the accuracy of any presumed psychological traits of prehistoric human societies. We can study contemporary societies whose traditional ways have not yet been destroyed by Western society, but this has hardly yielded unambiguous universal traits associated with specific social organization forms. --Lambiam 23:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This. I tend to refer to most of those personality typing schemes as "zodiac for nerds". I find it sums up how they're used quite nicely, especially if you listen to someone from the 70s that's really into zodiac talk about it. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that present-day hunter-gatherer societies match the profile here -- i.e. that they are night owls, are emonogamous, have later puberty than farmer societies, etc.? 2601:644:100:9F20:A1B5:912D:6E31:E349 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read-up on the subject and decide for yourself (per above: "We don't answer requests for opinions")

For example:

"Hunter-Gatherer Culture". National Geographic Society. 19 August 2019.
Scanes, Colin G. (1 January 2018). "Chapter 4 - Hunter–Gatherers". Animals and Human Society. Academic Press. pp. 65–82.
Ember, Carol R. (1 June 2020). "Hunter-Gatherers (Foragers)". Human Relations Area Files. Yale University.
Doucleff, Michaeleen (October 1, 2017). "Are Hunter-Gatherers The Happiest Humans To Inhabit Earth?". NPR.org.

--107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US election night concessions

I concede before asking this question that I have not done a thorough Google or Wikipedia search.... because I am sure I will get a better answer here than there.

What are the political and practical ramifications of an election night concession? (Let's say in US systems.) Surely the answer is 'none' but people seem to give them big weight. Hayttom (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has a significant psychological impact. Generally, by the time a candidate concedes, all the election followers know the outcome to a high degree of confidence, but the newsies seem to treat it as "official" after a concession.

Occasionally that can arguably bleed over into something practical. Al Gore jumped the gun in the 2000 United States presidential election and conceded before everything was really totally clear in Florida (which wouldn't be decided officially for another month, and which people still argue about to this day). He withdrew the concession, but did it affect subsequent recounts and court battles? Hard to know. --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Concessions aren’t really legally binding, at least not as far as I know. But the concession is coupled with a winding down of the campaign that could have a practical effect depending on when the concession is made and the actions are taken. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They couldn't possibly be legally binding. Otherwise, the result of an election would come down to whatever one person says it is, and that would leave the vast electoral bureaucracy, and the laws they administer, somewhat in the lurch. Also, if a concession were legally binding, would that also work for a claim of victory? I rather doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have no legal effect per se. My speculation is that it's not completely guaranteed that the judges deciding the various court cases are immune to the psychological effect. Once someone concedes, there's a tendency to think it's over. Then it takes extra mental energy to reverse that perception. --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the fact that anyone runs for office in the first place is the choice of the person running. You absolutely can refuse to take office despite being elected (even if it goes as far as the electoral college), and 3 U.S.C. § 20 provides that refusals to accept the office of President are at least evidence (it's likely one would be binding). I'm not even sure what to make of the analogy to claims of victory; it isn't really apt. In short, while I agree concessions aren't legally binding, I don't think it's exactly for the reasons you articulate, nor do I think it's the necessary rule. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely refuse to take office, but that doesn't mean any particular one of your opponents accedes to the office. Presumably it's treated as a vacancy, and filled (or not) according to the procedures for the given office. That's very different from a concession, which is an acknowledgment that one of your opponents has defeated you. It is possible for that acknowledgment to be mistaken. --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A concession speech is just another political speech. It has no legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the concession speech, look to see when the supporters of one side stop partying and fall silent (and sometimes burst into tears). 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:38A0:573D:6554:4D7 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is kind of important for the losing candidate make a statement that he/she will abide by the results of the election and that his/her followers should as well. The candidate could instead call on followers to dispute the election, which would make smooth, peaceful transitions of power difficult.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

An Asian custom

This is more of a "tip of my tongue" question. I remember watching a documentary (it was a show called "Taboo" on) National Geographic (NatGeo) that talked about a custom from a Southeast Asian (or perhaps Pacific) country where consenting teenagers of opposite gender could basically have sex. They would do so in a special raised structure made of bamboo, and I think it was customarily built by the female partner's father. It was quite similar to Night hunting/Bomena of Bhutan and Yobai of Japan but from some other country, I think. Can anyone please help with remembering the name of that custom or in which country it happened, if I'm not misremembering it as being different from Bomena/Yobai. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well a simple search for 'sex bamboo hut' easily finds [12]. Cambodia is generally considered part of southeast Asia. And although our article on the Kreung has no details, a search for 'kreung sex' finds more discussion of the practice like [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]/[18], [19] which use various names like "bride and groom hut", "maiden hut", "love hut", "houses of the young women" which to be fair by themselves probably aren't great search terms but probably could be combined with other terms. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! That's what I was looking for. I searched with Vietnam first and didn't even try after that because the result pages were filled with porn. I shouldn't have let that deter me from trying again though. Thanks again, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bude-Light in Trafalgar Square

Various sources refer to a replica Bude-Light in Trafalgar Square, London. However, a Google image search finds pictures of lamps of two different designs; one is on a narrow metal column, the other a broad stone column. How many Bude-lights are there in Trafalgar Square? Where exactly is it/are they? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This view shows a slender version at northeast end of the boundary wall, at the top of the steps leading to the National Gallery forecourt. A matching one is on the end of the corresponding wall in the southwest corner opposite Canada House. A stone-column version terminates the same wall in the southwest corner (shown here) nearest to Admiralty Arch, and in the southeast corner opposite The Strand, the column was converted in 1927 into London's smallest police station. So four is the answer as far as I can tell, two of each type. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Those pictures were taken at widely differing times - from the dress some appear Victorian. I can't see anything on Google street view - however I'm travelling up to town tonight and I'll make a point of visiting Trafalgar Square after dark when the streetlights are on - I'll report back after I get home. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:38A0:573D:6554:4D7 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art (London, 1846) p.30:-

"BUDE LIGHTS, TRAFALGAR-SQUARE - The lanterns for the reception of the Bude Lights to illumine this fine area, exhibit certain novel and meritorious peculiarities of form and construction, which has induced us to engrave them for our columns. The lanterns, four in number, are of an octagonal shape, from the design of Mr. Barry, R.A., and manufactured by Messrs. Stevens and Son, of the Darlington Works, Southwark. They are placed on four large bronze pedestals ; the height of the larger pair, from the base to the bottom of the lamp , is 3 feet six inches, and the diameter, 3 feet 8 inches; from the bottom to the top of the lamp, 3 feet 6 inches; diameter, 3 feet 1 inch. These are to be fixed on the massive granite pillars on the south-east and south-west angles of the square. The two smaller ones are of the following dimensions:— height, 9 feet to the bottom of the lamp ; diameter of square plinth at bottom, 3 feet, on which rests the octagon base, rising 2 feet. Diameter of the column, 13 inches, gradually tapering to 8 inches, 2 bands at proportionate distances. These are destined for the balustrades opposite the National Gallery: the gun metal, of which the whole is composed, is ⅜ of an inch thick. The lamps are to be glazed with flint glass of the substance of an inch, with a 2-inch cut bevel, worked parallel surfaces, and all highly polished. The refraction of light occasioned by these numerous varieties of surface is likely to produce a very brilliant effect; and in the event of another lamp being added, as proposed, to be placed between the fountains, some very novel appearances may perhaps be obtained, especially if the focus of either of the prisms should fall on the jets of water".

Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the same article with pictures is in the The Illustrated London News, Volume 6 (May 3, 1845) p. 284.

I find it hard to believe that the lamps in Trafalgar Square are replicas, it seems likely that the gas jets were replaced with electric light bulbs, probably in the early 20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Story Behind (Allegedly) Londons Smallest Police Station says that the lamps were electrified in the 1930s. A better source would be nice... Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid work, everyone, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you've updated the Bude-Light article to cover them. Well done yourself! --184.146.89.141 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One lamp marks the south-east end of the balustrade. It is identified by the number 44 and has doors reminiscent of Dr Who's Tardis (42 might have been more appropriate). On the corner of The Mall facing the Admiralty Arch is an elaborate standard with no less than three lamps. The base is marked "VR 1878". The south-west end of the balustrade is marked by a lamp identified by the number 53, a twin of the one numbered 42. The pedestal has not been hollowed out, so you can see how the other looked originally. The article amendment is good, but please don't misdescribe something which was no more than a telephone box as a "police station". The north-west end of the balustrade is marked by a similar lamp on a column. Its twin marks the north-east end of the balustrade. All the lamps in the square are electric and light up when it gets dark. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:B08A:61E4:9579:8DAD (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English Heritage calls it a "police post" [20]. It was a bit more than a 'phone box because it was intended that a policeman or two could use it as a secure observation lookout during disturbances. [21] Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Legality of secretly recording private conversations

I looked in vain on Wikipedia for the legality of recording private conversations using a covert recording device and then making them public. There is an article on Telephone call recording laws, but what if the conversation is not by phone, but one party is carrying a wire? (The article on Covert listening devices has a section on UK laws, with the mysterious sentence "Individuals may only use listening or recording devices within reasonable privacy laws for legitimate security and safety reasons." As opposed to unreasonable privacy laws that forbid such use?) --Lambiam 07:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The laws could vary from place to place. And beyond that, it depends what you do with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but for many issues (Age of consent, Blasphemy, Capital punishment, Driving under the influence, ...) Wikipedia provides detailed information on relevant laws by jurisdiction. The (specified) use is "making them public". --Lambiam 11:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much there, but it gets mentioned in the article on legality of recording by civilians (subsection 'Voice recording'). Another related article: sousveillance. I couldn't find what you are looking for either. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=TRlbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA452&dq=R.+sauerwald,+london&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjiOzWtKDrAhXBYysKHSaLDSAQuwUwAHoECAMQBg#v=onepage&q=R. sauerwald%2C london&f=false

[2] ttps://books.google.com.bd/books?id=GT48AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=Sauerwald+galvanometer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzxubTvaDrAhWVwjgGHawaBLoQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=Sauerwald%20galvanometer&f=false

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 229: / Line 229: @@
 :::::A concession speech is just another political speech. It has no legal standing. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 08:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::Even before the concession speech, look to see when the supporters of one side stop partying and fall silent (and sometimes burst into tears). [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23A8:4015:F500:38A0:573D:6554:4D7|2A00:23A8:4015:F500:38A0:573D:6554:4D7]] ([[User talk:2A00:23A8:4015:F500:38A0:573D:6554:4D7|talk]]) 13:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
+:Well, it is kind of important for the losing candidate make a statement that he/she will abide by the results of the election and that his/her followers should as well.  The candidate could instead call on followers to dispute the election, which would make smooth, peaceful transitions of power difficult.--[[User:Wikimedes|Wikimedes]] ([[User talk:Wikimedes|talk]]) 17:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 = August 22 =