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

October 22

Did German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian royalty and nobility ever have coats-of-arms of their own?

Did German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian royalty and nobility ever have coats-of-arms of their own? I was inspired to ask this question by the Capetian Armorial article. Futurist110 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

What does German heraldry and Russian heraldry suggest? We don't have similar articles for Italy or Austria-Hungary, at least not obvious ones. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Heraldry of the World - Austro-Hungarian Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The reference to Capetian Armorial suggests that the question is whether the families ruling these realms had a coats-of-arms of their own, distinct from the arms of the respective realms.  --Lambiam 08:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! Futurist110 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah. That is a very different question. For the German-speaking countries, at least, the answer is clear yes. Nearly all dukes-or-higher displayed a big shield tiled with arms for all their fiefs, and in front of it all a smaller shield of their ancestral arms. (An exception: the Habsburg dynasty of Austria never displayed the Habsburg arms in that way, as far as I know.) Sometimes the arms of the dynasty came to be used for the state (e.g. the Wittelsbach arms now stand for Bavaria); for the kingdom of the Netherlands, the dynastic coat of the counts of Nassau was adapted by addition of a crown and a sword to a pre-existing lion. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Another exception comes to mind. The kings of Hanover used (as such) only a composite of the coats of three fiefs. (The present pretender uses the arms of his patrilineal ancestor George III of Britain, in which the shield of Hanover takes the dynastic role. I don't recall whether he uses a label; like the duke of Anjou & Cadiz, the senior male Capetian, he may reckon he doesn't need it.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Romanov coat of arms (as adopted in 1856) has nothing to do with the Coat of arms of Russia. Before that date the Russian monarchs used the national coat of arms. Ghirla^-трёп- 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Sardinia and the Kingdom of Italy used coats of arms adapted from those [[1]] of the ruling royal House of Savoy, blazoned gules a cross argent. 2003:F5:6F14:9A00:9DC:B0EE:1ED9:2F7B (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

Can popular culture be considered part of actual culture

I had a flashback dream a couple nights back and now the subject of that dream is kinda stuck in my noggin, so please forgive me if I sound like I'm venting. It was when me and another guy who was once a close mate of mine had a heated argument which contributed to us parting ways almost a decade ago. The subject was, in short, that popular culture such as cartoons, arcades, comic books, films, anime/manga, movies, etc. isn't history or actual culture and cannot be part of the culture of a country, or a country's national identity. "Pop culture isn't really culture, how many times I have to get that through your thick skull" he would tell me. "It's ultimately an industry, it's vapid entertainment for kids made to sell toys, merchandise, and videogames, and as those kids grow old they fondly remember it just because of nostalgia, not because it "made an impact on their lives" or anything adhered to any culture that was practised. Master Chief, Pokemon, or Jason Voorhees is not comparable to stuff like the Winged Victory of Samothrace. You know why? Because in 1000 years, nobody will give a single damn about Master Chief, Pokemon, or Jason Voorhees." I can remember him ranting quietly to himself at one point after discussing to someone else "Knowing a lot about comic books, movies, and cartoons passes for culture in your mind?" It made me sad because when we were at high school, I remember he loved anything science fiction (especially Star Trek and hard science fiction works), before some random revelation or experience changed his mind and behaviour.

I know I tried to tell him before that art is part of culture. Movies, cartoons, videogames to some extent, and all the other things could be considered forms of art. Artists, animators, musicians, producers, and creators should not be wholly lumped in with or compared to businessmen, neither should they be compared to cultural practitioners, but I understand that they had to seek income, recognition, and fame from somewhere. I'm aware that many forms of art often add to or warp our perceptions of a nation's culture and may add to a stereotype. Sanrio, Kaiju films, videogames from many prominent publishers, giant robots, and the entire concept of "kawaii" are nowadays often considered as big a part of Japanese culture as the history of samurai or the Shinto religion. The skylines of Hong Kong, Taipei, Shanghai, and several Japanese cities are often intentionally chosen as a visual aesthetic for cyberpunk settings. The British love of rock and metal music is seen as a big influence on the United Kingdom's cultural image, as is Harry Potter and Doctor Who. And of course, no cultural depiction of the United States is complete without a little Star Wars, Disney, Looney Toons, the abundance of slasher films in the 80's and 90's, 500,000-or-so comedy sitcoms, and perhaps most importantly, American Idol. And these are all very small samples of national identities shaped by popular culture.

Even if all of this isn't completely true, I find myself occasionally wondering is there really something wrong with being a grown working adult and still be able to enjoy aspects of popular culture like a kid would, or is that still prevailing as a stigma that is frowned upon because people are too ashamed of their own "unprofessional" little secrets that "only children and the image of a snot-dripping, pimple-covered, obese manbaby nerd are allowed to enjoy", yet a man with a room full of bobbleheads, jerseys, and sports paraphernalia is considered normal. Am I truly wrong in believing that popular culture does not contribute to a nation's actual culture? --72.234.12.37 (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Your debate centers on how one defines “culture”. Experts disagree on that, so I doubt you get much of a consensus here among non-experts. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How does your pal know that anyone will care about a headless old statue 1,000 years from now? Is he a time-traveler? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything inherit about culture that restricts "popular culture" from it. I prefer to think of popular culture as something that people see as "short-lived" vs culture which can be seen as a longer, historical trend. For types of food, religion, clothing, these things are almost always long-lasting but for the arts like Rock and Roll or Star Wars (in general), are short lasting. Rock and Roll was massively popular, but it came and left; Star Wars still makes movies, yes, but they will have to stop eventually and like Rock and Roll will be gone having been massively popular for their time. Of course both are influential, but will probably not continue long enough to join what people consider "national culture" – at least that's how I see it. Conversely, things like pieces by Mahler or paintings by van Gogh come to mind as things that took a long time to gain popularity (long after Mahler and van Gogh's respective deaths), eventually permitting them into the Western canon. Because of this, I think a lot of popular culture has to reach a certain longevity to become part of "culture". There are surely some prominent examples of mediums that have either become "culture" or are very close as well. Manga in Japan comes to mind, which is of course a true descendent from the ukiyo-e of the Edo period. Of course you bring up mass production, and the issues stemming from this are widespread. As far back as a workshop from Raphael, just Rembrandt by himself or a piece by Mozart, mass production can always result in low quality examples of an otherwise well-made product. Nevertheess, these figures have managed to enter what people consider "culture" even if Rembrandt (and van Gogh now that I think of it – look up his potato paintings) did make some truly awful paintings. Aza24 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Who was influenced by that old headless statue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• The most important adage on culture ever produced is Sturgeon's law, which is "90% of everything is crap". 90% of what someone might call "high culture" as distinct from "pop culture" was crap, only the 10% survived until today. The same will be true of the culture we are producing now. 90% of what is happening in popular music or comic books or movies is crap, and will be forgotten, not because it is "pop culture", but because it is exactly like the culture we consider "high culture"; we're living it now and can't see the forest for the trees. It is quite likely that aspects of pop culture today will be preserved for centuries. Most will not. However, that is also true of the culture that was produced in past times and we only get to see the 10% that has survived. It isn't that older culture was better, it's just the better stuff hangs around. And, perhaps to an even more important point that's a discussion for another day, it isn't always (or even usually) the best stuff that gets canonized; there are lots of political reasons for what we consider the "good stuff" when it comes to culture, and a lot of what you think of today as "good" (music, movies, art, whatever) has been carefully curated for you by people who had a very specific political agenda. But that's a different discussion entirely. --Jayron32 17:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Did President Truman really know the military intended to drop a second atom bomb?

I’ve been hearing that after the bombing of Nagasaki, Truman issued an order saying no more atom bombs should be dropped without his express approval. I’ve also heard that he claimed he authorized both bombings. Could it be he didn’t know about the plan for the second bombing that ended up destroying Nagasaki, and he didn’t authorize it, and he felt terrible afterwards and made sure no more would be dropped without his permission? He might have reasoned that even if he didn’t know about it(the 2nd bombing), that he should have known, and that he should take responsibility for it.(And/or also maybe he didn’t want to seem like he didn’t know what his undelings were doing? After all, Truman was famed for saying “the buck stops here. Also, had he always said that, or did he adopt the mantra” the buck stops here” after Nagasaki?Rich (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't help you but it's so interesting that Truman didn't know what the Manhattan Project was before FDR died. Hayttom (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Article Two of the United States Constitution, the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States". While I'm sure neither FDR nor Truman personally authorized every bombing run over Tokyo, for the military to do something like the Nagasaki bombing on their own initiative without even telling the C-in-C is pretty hard for me to swallow. It would be career-ending at the very least, though I suppose I can imagine abstractly that they might have calculated that Truman would not find it in his interest to make the dispute public.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone can help you with references that illuminate this sort of speculative alt-history, but if someone does, I'll be interested to see. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets notes how the targets were chosen, and also notes that Nagasaki was added to the list of potential targets on July 25. It does not mention whether Truman was in on that conversation or not, but it is clear that Truman was aware of and approved the dropping of two bombs. The actual selection of Nagasaki from the approved list and the specific day and time of the bomb dropping may or may not have had Truman's active involvement, but he was aware of both Nagasaki as a potential site and the planned use of a second bomb. --Jayron32 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Reading your link, I can see that Truman okayed Nagasaki as one of several possible targets, but I don’t see why you say that means Truman was ok with dropping any more than one atom bomb, although some in the military might have been been able and willing to interpret Truman’s ok as a directive to drop atom bombs on all five targets on the list, rather than an authorization to drop one abomb on one of the five targets.Rich (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

After Nagasaki, according to the article linked by Jayron: "On August 10, [Groves] sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb ... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." Marshall endorsed the memo with the hand-written comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President", something Truman had requested that day. This modified the previous order that the target cities were to be attacked with atomic bombs "as made ready". So, as stated, Truman had given authorization to use the two bombs that were ready to be launched, at the Army's discretion as to where and how (within certain parameters, that are explained in the article). He then asked to specifically authorize future bombings because he realized that Japan was about to surrender and did not wish to have more bombings unless absolutely necessary to end the war. Regarding "the buck stops here", it's adapted from a speech he made in 1948 (see the reference in Truman's article), in which he mentions the phrase while speaking in retrospect about his decision to authorize the two bombings. Xuxl (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Further information:

• Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House. ISBN 9780141001463.

(Often considered a definitive source on the subject). --2606:A000:1126:28D:6D82:1150:3AC7:E5B0 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Another authoritative source is Richard Rhodes's The Making of the Atomic Bomb. In May 1945, just before the war in Europe ended, a civilian committee was formed with the deliberately vague name of the Interim Committee, with Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War, as chairman. At their June 1 meeting, Stimson was absent and James F. Byrnes made the recommendation "that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers' homes; and that it be used without prior warning". Truman "did not give the order to drop the atomic bomb on June 1. But he appears to have made the decision then, with a little help from Jimmy Byrnes" (Rhodes, pages 650-651). Note that there was no implication of using any specific number of bombs as implied above (although Lt. Gen. Leslie Groves did make an offhand prediction after the Trinity test that two would be enough: Rhodes, page 676). They were to be used when they were ready, and it was only after the Nagasaki bomb that Truman decided to use no more: "Truman said he had given orders to stop the atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (Rhodes, page 743, quoting the diary of Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Commerce). --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird. That's my second mention of the Trinity test on the Reference Desk in just over 24 hours. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Frank's book includes "new" information from declassified and non-redacted Ultra & Magic documents, only available post Rhodes's book. 2606:A000:1126:28D:6D82:1150:3AC7:E5B0 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC) . . . See also: Richard Frank (8 August 2005). "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb". Washington Examiner.

I don't see anything there that addresses the question of whether the dropping of a specific number of bombs was authorized. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A recent article by Alex Wellerstein, "a historian of science at the Stevens Institute of Technology who studies the history of nuclear weapons", Did the U.S. plan to drop more than two atomic bombs on Japan? (National Geographic, August 2020), says:

"On August 8, weather forecasters were predicting that August 10, the planned date for the second attack, was going to be unfavorable. Instead, U.S. officials on Tinian, without consulting anyone in Washington, D.C. (including Truman or even Stimson), decided that they had the authority under the launch order to use the next weapon".

Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ok. Part of the reason for my suspicions is there is information that General LeMay jumped the gun on authorization on an earlier massive bombing of Japan. I suspected, based on my cynicism, that LeMay’s superiors had indirectly indicated to LeMay that they wanted LeMay to jump the gun, getting the dirty job done. If LeMay’s higherups had used that bureacratic tactic with LeMay,(which they might have thought of as cutting thru red tape), and on board with a dropping a second atom bomb, they might have used the tactic of jumping the gun get the secon abomb dropped without authorization from Truman, even if Truman wasn’t tacitly supporting it.Rich (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese folk religion

It is truly hard for me to grasp Chinese folk religion. I get that's a it's a badly defined umbrella category but what would it even look like for most people, are there some consistencies in practice or does it vary wildly? And what would common practicers even refer to themselves as practicing, surely they wouldn't say they were apart of "folk religion"? Aza24 (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

People don't often have a name for these things in their own language. "Just what we do" is the name they would give to it. The set of cultural practices that we label "religion" is not always clearly divided from cultural practices we label "not religion", and even more so the idea that religion itself could be put in a box as distinct from other cultural practices is an extremely western practice that really didn't get happened until the 1600s (the Thirty Years' War and the Peace of Westphalia and its treatment of religion in particular represented a unique paradigm that informed Western thought on the matter down to today). In many places, they don't have neat little boxes where cultural practices are divided into "religious" and "non-religious" spheres, and most people don't think in those terms. --Jayron32 17:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As with religious practices around the world, there are some people who practice it very diligently (thoroughly?), and some who have only a passing interest. Just about everyone in East Asia celebrates lunar new year, from Japan and Korea through South-east Asia. Beyond that, the variations are pretty extreme. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 -- One interesting parallel is that words for "religion" and "Judaism" are not attested in Biblical Hebrew (though a kind of equivocal verb form occurs in the late Biblical Hebrew of Esther 8:17). AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about the 14th Amendment and "state action"

I'm sorry if this is a really stupid question, but had, purely hypothetically, the 1849 Constitution of California survived up to the present-day and an original provision of it had been found to conflict with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, what would have been the basis for viewing this hypothetical original 1849 California constitutional provision as "state action" when California didn't even have its own government yet back in 1849? To state my question here more succinctly, what is the basis for viewing an action by a US state constitutional convention (for instance, the Monterey Convention of 1849) before a particular US state would have actually been admitted into the Union--and thus before this US state would have ever actually had its own government--as being a form of "state action" that is liable to challenge under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution? The 14th Amendment only applies to state action, after all, and a US state constitutional convention is not a US state governmental body--is it? Futurist110 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If the State never acts on such a provision of its constitution, how would the question arise? —Tamfang (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 23

more ancient fragment of a play (theatre)

The Persians is the more ancient play(theatre) that we know complete, what fragment of a play (theatre) is more ancient that we know?--93.61.55.121 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Aeschylus himself had earlier fragments than The Persians. This list contains all of the known fragments of his works, there's only 7 complete works, of which The Persians is one of them. There's also some works attributed to Thespis, but nothing authenticated, many (if not all) works attributed to him were later determined to be forgeries. --Jayron32 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently we have fragments of Phrynichus' Phoenician Women (476 BC), on which The Persians was based. --Antiquary (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Which present-day Western monarchs married other royals, nobles, and/or aristocrats (as opposed to commoners)?

Which present-day Western monarchs married other royals, nobles, and/or aristocrats (as opposed to commoners)? Futurist110 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Princess Elizabeth married an obscure former Greek prince who had just been raised to the peerage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Good example! What else? Futurist110 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly of interest: Henrik,_Prince_Consort_of_Denmark#French_title_controversy Haukur (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow! She married someone with an extremely rare pedigree--specifically a pseudo-noble! Similar to how Jeff Bezos is a pseudo-Hispanic! Futurist110 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Some aristocracy nerds also got a kick out of this marriage: Olympia_von_und_zu_Arco-Zinneberg#Personal_life Haukur (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon is not currently a monarch. StellarHalo (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep--simply a royal claimant to a non-existent throne. Futurist110 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Imperial, not royal. In France that's an important distinction. —Tamfang (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein married a countess from a Bohemian princely family. StellarHalo (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Futurist110 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

He is not monarch anymore but Albert II of Belgium married a daughter of an Italian Prince-Duke. Also King Philippe of Belgium married a daughter of a Belgian count. StellarHalo (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Futurist110 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The only other European monarch is Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, who married Countess Georgina von Wilczek. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I checked every country (Spain, Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, San Marino) but not Liechtenstein. I see why - StellarHalo mentioned it last night. StellarHalo mentions Princess Marie and Alansplodge mentions Countess Georgina who was actually the wife of Franz Josef II. 92.27.12.232 (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

D'oh! I think we have the lot then. Not a monarch (yet) but perhaps a mention of Prince Charles, who married Lady Diana Spencer of the aristocratic Spencer family, and we all know that didn't end well. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course even Camilla Rosemary Shand while a commoner, counted Roland Cubitt, 3rd Baron Ashcombe as her maternal grandfather. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The pretender of Hanover is married to Caroline of Monaco. —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October 24

Were the male members of the House of Dreux and House of Artois actually recognized as princes du sang in France before these two Capetian houses became extinct in the male line in the late 15th century?

Were the male members of the House of Dreux and House of Artois actually recognized as princes du sang in France before these two Capetian houses (or cadet branches) became extinct in the male line in the late 15th century? I am asking because members of the Capetian House of Courtenay were never actually recognized as princes du sang in spite of them actively petitioning to be recognized as such on numerous occasions. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the French Wikipedia's article for Prince du sang, the title of Prince of the Blood was only became official in 1576 through an edict issued by Henry III. Since both the House of Dreux and House of Artois were already extinct by then, the male members of those branches were never considered princes du sang. StellarHalo (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That French Wikipedia article also says this--English translation: "The term "prince of the blood" nevertheless appeared in xv th century , to describe members of progeny lineages St. Louis thus belong to the French royal lineage and are able to succeed to the Crown in case of extinction of the royal family, that is, of the king, of his sons, and of the sons of his sons. It succeeded the expressions "princes of the fleur-de-lys" and "princes of the blood of France"." Futurist110 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well since, neither the House of Dreux nor the House of Artois were descended from Louis IX, they were most likely never considered prince du sang. Not really that surprising considering how much importance was given to St. Louis by his descendants. The name "Louis" was given to sons eight generations straight from Louis XIII onwards. StellarHalo (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October 25

Why didn't the Ottoman Empire ever claim Crimea during World War I?

Why didn't the Ottoman Empire ever claim Crimea during World War I? Crimea still had a huge Muslim population in 1897, after all--with Muslims being close to a plurality, if not an outright plurality, in some parts of Crimea in 1897. Futurist110 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Claiming is an empty act if one cannot keep the territory under control and defend it against attempts of reconquering it. The major cities were ethnically predominantly Russian. Support by the rural population would not have been much help to Ottoman ambitions. After the ill-conceived Black Sea Raid had thrust the neutral Empire into a war, it had been mainly forced into defensive action. Presumably, the prize of controlling Crimea was not considered worth the military cost required for conquering and maintaining control.  --Lambiam

For what it's worth, though, Crimea can probably be defended rather well by land due to its extremely narrow land connection to the rest of Russia and Ukraine. Futurist110 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the Turks had much more pressing concerns to address, as their empire was collapsing on all fronts. In fact, they were lucky to keep Constantinople and the Dardanelles after the British and French empires had decided to award these territories to Russia in 1915. Many Turks still remembered the Russian troops at Yeşilköy (part of Istanbul), where they were halted only by the diplomatic hysteria of Paris and London. Ghirla^-трёп- 07:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Another problem was the almost complete obsolescence of their navy, which was outclassed by the Russian Black Sea Fleet. They did mount the Black Sea Raid on Crimean ports in October 1914, but spent the rest of the war playing hide-and-seek. Naval superiority is a prerequisite for any major amphibious operation. They also had their hands full defending themselves against repeated Russian offensives in the Caucasus campaign. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

At the outset of WWI, the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe. Though it was on the winning side in the Crimean War, it was basically treated like the annoying little brother by Britain and France. Internally, the Ottomans had been losing much of its European territory to independence movements throughout the Balkans, and most of the rest of the Great Powers saw little reason to stop this (and many encouraged it). Just prior to World War I, the Ottomans had been embarrassed in the Balkan Wars. It isn't even clear why the Ottomans were in World War I anyways; they were kind of backed into it by accident, and suddenly found themselves at war and allied with Germany. Their entry was not carried out with the full participation of the Ottoman government or the Sultan, it was basically a conspiracy between Enver Pasha and German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon, without the knowledge of anyone in the Ottoman government, to force the Ottoman Empire into the War. See Black Sea Raid. Considering the ignominious way the Ottomans entered the war, the rather disorganized state of the Government, and the swift and harsh retaliation from Britain, France, and Russia in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and the way in which various groups within the Ottoman Empire sided with the Allies meant the Ottomans were in no position to invade Crimea, or really anywhere else. --Jayron32 16:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"That obscene parody of a human face"

In the Hallowe'en Party episode of Agatha Christie's Poirot Poirot is listening to the radio, we hear "The feeling of sick dread came over me as I gazed upon that dreadful countenance and that obscene parody of a human face. Even as I watched, his bloodshot eyeball begin to roll down his livid, green skin. “Fool”, he hissed. “Insect”…" and then Poirot turns it off. What I want to know is a) was this in the original book, and b) is it a quotation from an actual work (it sounds vaguely familiar to me)? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1969 doesn't seem to have that text, can't find the earlier UK edition. fiveby(zero) 13:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like something M. R. James would have written, but I can't tell you the exact work at the moment. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

M. R. James was a much finer stylist than Christie. He would never have written anything of the sort. Ghirla^-трёп- 07:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both statements, but we can establish (via searching the text linked by Fiveby) that the passage does not exist in Christie's text – indeed it has no mention of "radio" (or "wireless"), suggesting that the entire scene has been added by the screenwriters of the TV adaptation. Moreover, as it's supposed to be part of a radio broadcast that Poirot is listening to, it would be internally consistent for it not to be in the default style of the prose.

Oddly enough, the only hits I find by web-searching for the words Fool!" he hissed."Insect! [sic as they actually appear] are on a translation website tr-ex.me showing examples of translating "Hiss" into German and Dutch. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.156 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I found those translations too. I'm sure it's not M R James, I've read and re-read his stories many times over forty-odd years, and it just doesn't sound like him. More like Sax Rohmer or Norbert Jacques perhaps. DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - I read James as a 'young adult', haven't dipped into it for a while, just a thought. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

M. J. Maynard

Can we find a full name and dates for M. J. Maynard, also known as Mrs. C. C. Garbett (British, fl. in Iraq in 1921)? Or any other info? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Colin Campbell Garbett (1881-1972) second-wife was called "Marjorie Josephine Maynard", they were married in Bengal Presidency on 20 January 1919 according to the British India Office Marriage Index. She appears to have been born in Preston, Lancashire in 1891 the daughter of Frederic Prisent Maynard. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

She appears to have died in Westminster at then end of 1975, her date of birth was given as 23 January 1891. Lots of stuff about her in the newspapers in 1950s when they government kicked her of ther farm in Sussex for keeping smelly animals. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

She died on 23 October 1975 according to the government probate search webpage. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

[2] has Marjorie, if that wasn't a typo. fiveby(zero) 17:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It was a typo sorry for that and thanks, I have corrected it above. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. What's the source for the birth date? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: ICYMI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy, the General Register Office Death Index has her death recorded in Q4 of 1975 in the Westminster registration district, volume 15, page 1969 and gives her date of birth as 23 Jan 1891 it can be seen using https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

E-scooters

(edit conflict) A "road" is "...any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes." A "highway" is "a way over which the public has a right to pass and re-pass by foot, horse or vehicle, or with animals." A "vehicle" is a "carriage or conveyance of any kind used on land." A "mechanically propelled vehicle" is a vehicle (including electrical vehicles) which can be propelled by mechanical means." A "motor vehicle" is "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads." E-scooters aren't allowed on pavements and Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police v Saddington [2001] RTR 15 decided that as they offer an opportunity to get quickly through traffic they are road vehicles. A "driver" is a "person engaged in the driving of the vehicle." Cyclists, for example, are drivers. E-scooters must be taxed and insured (because they don't have pedals) and a licence is needed to ride one [3], [4].

In DPP v King [2008] EWHC 447 (Admin) an e-scooter rider was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified and with no insurance. In Coates v CPS (2011) EWHC 2032 (Admin) it was decided that a Segway was a motor vehicle. All vehicles being used on roads must be lit at night. Are the police prosecuting e-scooter riders for riding without licence/lights/numberplates/tax/insurance, etc.? 92.8.180.182 (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A bicycle is a vehicle.194.53.186.132 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A motorcycle is a "motor bicycle". An e-scooter is also a "motor bicycle" unless its wheels are less than 46 cm apart. Looking at someone whizzing past on the pavement on one of these things yesterday the wheels seem to be a lot more than 46 cm apart. That means the rider is also required to wear a crash helmet (apart from not riding on the pavement). 194.53.186.175 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Old rolling stock

British Rail Class 483 is the oldest rolling stock in passenger service in the UK. Is there any older stock in general (not heritage) service anywhere else in the world? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, those cars were built in 1938. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction: 1939 and 1940. I believed what it said at the top of the linked article rather than looking at the roster at the bottom. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

These are not in passenger service, but the Rhätische Bahn still uses the electric Rhaetian Railway Ge 2/2 (built 1911) and Bernina-Bahngesellschaft Fe 2/2 51 (built 1909) for shunting duties. They also have the Xrot d 9213 steam-powered rotary snowplough, built in 1910, which is sometimes needed on the Bernina railway, although more commonly used for demonstrations for tourists. Other Swiss railways may have some more very old rolling stock, mostly for shunting or maintenance. The Italians like to keep rolling stock for a very long time too. PiusImpavidus (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Melbourne (W-class) and Milan (Class 1500) both have trams in daily service that are older than that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Being realistic, those W-class trams in Melbourne run on the City Circle tourist route, so they are primarily a heritage service, although locals do use them for short commutes at times. Those used for the Colonial Tramcar Restaurant service stopped running two years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Being realistic, they are in daily use on a public service, operated by a public operator, sharing tracks and stops with other public services. They are not on a heritage line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Our article City Circle tram uses the words "Aimed mainly at tourists". HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Where in Duncan's question does he say "not aimed at tourists"? Who do you think the current Class 483 service is aimed at? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• I believe the oldest in the U.S. in regular passenger service is on the ironically named Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line (currently the slowest line on the Boston T). The rail cars were built in 1944-1945 though they have been overhauled a few times. --Jayron32 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 26

US County Consistent Election Results

Are there any US counties that has consistently voted for one party in presidential elections for more than 150 years or since the (the county's) formation? 69.209.14.47 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting question. I just looked through the five counties of Hawaii, as the state's only been around since 1959, and found that Wikipedia only shows the Democrats winning in Kalawao County. But this is not conclusive; presumably because of the county's unusual history and small population, Wikipedia doesn't show any results from before 1992. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering since Mitchell County, North Carolina has voted Republican since 1876 so thtat is a long period of time. 69.209.14.47 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

So far, the oldest examination I've found goes back to 1912, so that gives you 100 years to start with. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Has the ballots so far been counted and tallied?

Dear Wikipedians:

Last night a Taiwanese friend of mine, who is perhaps a bit over-zealous with American politics, said that she's losing sleep over the fact that the ballots that have been cast so far have been counted and showing a massive lead for Biden. Is there any merit to what she said or is this yet another example of fake news?

Thanks,

172.97.199.135 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As with everything linked to the U.S. elections, it varies from state to state. The processing of mail-in ballots can begin before election day in certain states, but no actual reporting of results, so there is no "massive lead for Biden". Your friend will need to await election day to find out the results. See this article from NPR: [5] Xuxl (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much. That's the exact answer that I needed. 172.97.199.135 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

They don't open and count the ballots til election day, but they track which ballots have been received, so they can tell how many were sent by registered Democrats, registered Republicans, etc. That doesn't say with certainty how those people voted, but it is likely to be correlated. So it is sort of a pre-election exit poll. Probably a bad idea to let the information out, but they do it anyway. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

British treaty with Mexico, ratified 1827

In our article on James Morier we read "between 1824 and 1826 he was special commissioner to Mexico negotiating the treaty with that country that was eventually ratified in 1827". What was that treaty? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"British-Mexican Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation of December 26th, 1826" [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Briefly mentioned, with a Spanish source, in Mexico–United Kingdom relations#History. I'll add the title and above source there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Popular Vote vs Electoral College

Since it is the Electoral College that makes the decision re: who becomes President, why is there any emphasis on the Popular Vote? As I am understanding the polls, they are "measuring" the Popular Vote rather than the Electoral Vote. As I am not American, I am probably missing something (like how an Electoral College makes any sense at all - yes, I did read the article). 69.42.176.50 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the popular vote in the US states will determine who will win a particular US state's Electoral College votes, and then it's simply a matter of math. Futurist110 (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The OP may be referring to the national popular vote, which is often claimed to be a reason why a losing candidate "should have" won. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's just another indicator. Hillary's huge popular vote margin in 2016 while failing to win the electoral vote was highly unusual. An electoral vote landslide is also misleading. In theory, a candidate could win the popular vote by just a single vote in each state but end up winning every electoral vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s easier to understand and usually corresponds pretty strongly to who wins. A surprising number of Americans don’t understand how the Electoral College works, despite civics education and despite cable news explaining it every few hours.

As to understanding why the EC is a method we use, it helps to understand the original way elections were to work. The idea was that people would elect electors that they knew and trusted in their communities, who would go to Washington and be courted by the candidates themselves for their electoral votes. Now, to me, that sounds stunningly like a Westminsterian Prime Minister, except instead of MPs choosing from among themselves, specially-elected single-purpose people choose from among really anybody. Apportionment of electors is itself a matter of the federal government representing a federal system (compare how MEPs are apportioned). And of course, the American system has a more meaningful separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The way it works now is essentially the result of the electors’ platforms in their communities being that they’d choose a particular candidate no matter what. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Fine point: the electors (members of the Electoral College) might visit Washington if they want to, but there is no requirement for them to go there. They meet and vote in their own states. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out that the winning candidate did not win the "popular vote" is to many a way of saying "The USA has a really dumb way of electing its President". Not saying that I agree or disagree with that observation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the electoral college is that the states, not the public as such, elect the president. That was part of the compromise that convinced the smaller states to ratify the Constitution and join the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been hearing that criticism for decades, yet I know of no movement to change the system. It seems that vast numbers of people just assume it's all about the popular vote, and when they discover it isn't, meaning they have a somewhat uneducated notion of how their own constutution actually works, somehow it's someone else's fault and they think that complaining and protesting is a sensible way of proceeding. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the best defense of the Electoral College is similar to the best defense of the US Senate--as in, it gives small US states a disproportionate say and disproportionate influence relative to their total population. Of course, this in itself wouldn't justify awarding a US state's electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. Futurist110 (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact still has some degree of backing, and does currently have 196 of the 270 electors it needs to take effect. Although it is true that a lot of those came in the early years 2007 to 2011 with New York's 2014 adding a fair few and then 31 total from 2018 to 2019, I assume in part due to Trump's success in winning despite losing the popular vote. Still something happening in 2007-2011 is only a bit over a decade ago and IMO getting so many EC electors counts as a decent movement. Even if frankly, there doesn't seem to be much chance of it getting the 270 needed any time soon. But who knows, with changing demographics, maybe there will be a push in Texas. And if they can also get Florida suddenly things seem a lot more interesting. I believe it is true that there hasn't been any serious attempt to actually amend the constitution to modify or end the Electoral College since ~1970 United States Electoral College#Efforts to abolish or reform. Even Jimmy Carter's later proposal seems to have been mostly ignored. Amending the constitution is difficult hence the focus on the compact even if leads to greater uncertainty and debate over the legality. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that enlightenment, Nil Einne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

What share of the popular vote did John Major receive? Or, for that matter, Boris Johnson? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

They are not voted for by the whole country. Boris Johnson, in his last election, won 52.6% of the vote in his constituency. But there are only 70,000ish potential voters who elected him. All other positions in the UK government are decided by internal party politics, and are not voted on by the nation at large. There is no "national election" for any single office in the UK. --Jayron32 10:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If the question is about the percentage of the votes for the winning party, then in the 2019 United Kingdom general election the Conservatives under Johnson won 43.6% of the votes cast, against 32.1% for Labour. To find an election where the winning party didn't also "win the popular vote", you have to go back to the February 1974 United Kingdom general election, which had the Conservatives on 37.9% and Labour 37.2%. However, Labour won more seats in the House of Commons (301 to 297, out of a total of 635) and eventually formed a minority government. (There was another election later in the year in which Labour won a bare parliamentary majority with 39.2% of the vote.) In the 2010 United Kingdom general election the Conservatives took the highest proportion of the vote - 36.1% - but gaining 306 seats out of 650, and we ended up with the Cameron–Clegg coalition. Even in the Labour landslide of 1945 the winners only took 47.7% of the vote. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and the answer for Major in the 1992 election is 41.9%. AndrewWTaylor (talk)

I think DOR (HK) might know that and be asking the question to point out that choosing a chief executive by popular vote isn't such a normal thing that the United States not doing it needs to explained. --Khajidha (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. DOR (HK) (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In this country, there is a distinction between "council officers" (who are employees and presumably answerable to the Human Resources Department in some way) and the elected councillors. Some ministers sit in the House of Lords, which is not elected by popular vote (although some members are elected by the House). Comparatively recently, a few mayors have been elected by popular vote concurrently with the local council election (these directly elected mayors do not appear to be councillors, though they may have been in the past). Aldermen (who are not elected by the voters, though they may well be elected by the councillors) were abolished everywhere outside the City of London (I've not investigated the procedure there - its councillors are not elected by a simple vote of residents, of whom there are very few). 81.139.213.56 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The popularity of the Italian monarchy before 1940?

Just how popular was the Italian monarchy before the Fall of France and Italy's entry into World War II? Futurist110 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There's not much on the internet, but our Victor Emmanuel III of Italy#Loss of popular support section says (with reference): "Foreigners noted how even as late as the 1930s newsreel images of King Victor Emmanuel and Queen Elena evoked applause, sometimes cheering, when played in cinemas, in contrast to the hostile silence shown toward images of Fascist leaders". Support waned when the king supported Mussolini's overseas conquests. Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

La Croix de Berny: Roman steeple-chase

La Croix de Berny: Roman steeple-chase (Amazon listing) is the name of a book by Théophile Gautier, Delphine de Girardin, Jules Sandeau and Joseph Méry.

"Roman steeple-chase" seems to suggest a novel about horse racing, but the term seems unknown outside this book. Novels are rarely the work of multiple authors, let alone four.

Here it's called The Cross of Berny: or, Irene's Lovers, and is described as an "epistolary novel". We're told:

• Literary partnerships have often been tried, but very rarely with success in the more imaginative branches of literature. Occasionally two minds have been found to supplement each other sufficiently to produce good joint writing, as in the works of MM. Erckman-Chatrian; but when the partnership has included more than two, it has almost invariably proved a failure, even when composed of individually the brightest intellects, and where the highest hopes have been entertained. Standing almost if not quite alone, in contrast with these failures of the past, THE CROSS OF BERNY is the more remarkable; and has achieved the success not merely of being the simply harmonious joint work of four individual minds,—but of being in itself, and entirely aside from its interest as a literary curiosity, a great book.

Yet for all its claimed greatness, the book appears in none of the lists of works in our articles on the individual authors. For a "great book", it seems all but unknown.

La Croix de Berny station is also the name of a metro station in Paris, but I don't know whether it has any connection to the book, or whether one was named after the other.

Can anyone give me more information/background about this curious work?

For what it's worth, my interest sprang from my attempt to pin down the source of the following quote from Gautier:

• Le hasard, c'est peut-être le pseudonyme de Dieu, quand il ne veut pas signer. (Chance is perhaps the pseudonym of God when he does not wish to sign His work.)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Note. "La Croix de Berny station" is not located in Paris but in Antony,_Hauts-de-Seine in the southern suburbs of Paris. (There is a picture of the fountain that is located in "Croix de Berny" on the referred Wiki page). - AldoSyrt (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. In my "mind", a place that's in the suburbs of X is in X, but I know that not all places see it that way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Only a starting-point: There was a real steeple-chase at the Berny crossroads in 1841, where none of the three riders obtained the prize: Wiener-Moden-Zeitung 1841. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The novel is placed by wikiquote in the year 1845, quote, which is reasonably close to 1841 and its subject are three men racing for a lady, seems reasonably close. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Berny crossroads, now officially called Place du Général de Gaulle, used to be called the Carrefour de la Croix de Berny. Perhaps it was named, like the nearby RER station,^[7] after a local landmark, such as a notable crucifix. But French croix can by itself also mean "crossroads",^[8] and more likely that is the original sense, in which case Carrefour de la Croix is pleonastic, like "The London Gazette journal" or "the St Paul's Cathedral church".  --Lambiam 10:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is crossroads: "La ville est connue pour son relais de poste aux chevaux qui accueille les voyageurs au carrefour dénommé « Croix de Berny » car il est à l'intersection de la route royale, tracée au XVIIIe siècle, qui mène de Versailles à Choisy-le-Roi, et de la route reliant Paris à Orléans, intersection à l'angle nord-ouest du parc du château de Berny". fr:Antony#Le développement au xixe siècle. - AldoSyrt (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Catherine Thomas (a university lecturer?)[9], the "steeple-chase" is a race between the four authors who compete to get the preference of the reader: [un] roman « steeple chase », une « course au clocher », [qui] repose sur une lutte littéraire au cours de laquelle les quatre auteurs doivent rivaliser « de style et d’esprit » afin de s’attirer la préférence du lecteur. Moreover, she wrote "each author personifies him/herself as a character in the novel". –AldoSyrt (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Another reference (in French) to a literary competition:[10]. - AldoSyrt (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The last words from the novel: "Nous avons tous fait une course désespérée pour atteindre le bonheur ! Un seul est arrivé, — mort !" (my higlight); [11] - AldoSyrt (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

So while the genre classifier roman steeple-chase ("steeple-chase novel") appears to have been chosen to classify the work as a literary competition between the four authors, they may have chosen the title La Croix de Berny to symbolize that, as in the 1841 steeple-chase, none should be considered the winner.  --Lambiam 10:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the work itself, according to the catalogue of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, it was reprinted regularly between 1846 and 1865, then seemed to have been completely forgotten until 2003, when it was reprinted as part of Gautier's collected works. But it only gained some profile when it was published again in 2019 in a solo edition that was actually accessible to the general reading public. So it's clearly a recently rediscovered work, after having been largely forgotten for 140 years or so, which explains why there's not much that can be found regarding it. Xuxl (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Two 19th century quotes in French: on a real La Croix de Berny steeple-chase Journal des Haras, Paris 1841, p. 124 and on the novel La Croix de Berny steeple-chase Grand Dictionnaire Universel, vol. 5, lettre C, Paris 1869, p. 578. Interesting to note that the connection between the novel, its title, and real steeple-chases at La Croix de Berny was already discussed in 1869. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to all my excellent friends. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 27

Mass murders/anthropogenic disasters for which the classifications of genocide are currently controversial among scholars?

I am trying to construct an exhaustive list of all instances of wars, mass murders, and famines for which there is currently no academic consensus among historians and other scholars whether or not each of them constitutes an instance of genocide.

• Atrocities in the Congo Free State
• Great Irish Famine
• Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66
• Albigensian Crusade
• War in the Vendée
• Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
• Population decline of Native Americans after 1492 and before 1900
• Holodomor
• Kazakh famine of 1932–33
• The extermination of Canaanites

If you know of any ongoing genocide classification controversy that is not included in the above list, please point it out. I am not looking for genocides that are still being denied by a few fringe historians or a single country like the Armenian genocide, the Bosnian genocide, and the Cambodian genocide. StellarHalo (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

South African Farm Murders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.105.98 (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide denial - also Assyrian genocide and Greek genocide. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

British concentration camps are described in our article as resulting in "Genocide of the Boers" without any source. A counter-argument might be neglect and incompetence. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Aboriginal Tasmanians. --Antiquary (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A large part of the history of the Migration Period and the Viking Age consists of invasions that might or might not be treated as genocidal. Were conquered peoples exterminated, driven out or assimilated? There's an interesting discussion here. --Antiquary (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

On the flipside, there's probably some case to be made for genocides being attributed to early state societies, especially the Roman Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Shang dynasty, etc. Many of the cultures subsumed into these empires ceased to exist after they came to town. After all, how many Etruscans have you met lately? --Jayron32 17:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I might argue that the Etruscan culture and people did not experience genocide so much as absorbtion, but for a more clear cut and entirely deliberate Roman example, see the Dacians. I have read that Julius Caesar was denounced in the Senate for an unnecessary genocide (possibly that of the Eburones or the Atuatuci) – but I don't know what terms might have been used as the English word is a 20th-century coinage. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.156 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the Etruscans sided with Hannibal, then the final straw, they sided against Rome in the Social War.
Sleigh (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That war arose from the Etruscans and other long-standing allies of Rome wanting full Roman citizenship and corresponding rights. Although Rome won the actual war, it then acquiesced to these demands to avoid further conflict and "The Etruscans and the Italic peoples quickly integrated themselves into the Roman world, after gaining Roman citizenship. Their own languages and cultures became extinct in the process . . . ." This is not genocide in the normal understanding of the term. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} #2.218.14.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

For whom the bell tolls

(edit conflict) A new report says 95% of people will not gain lasting immunity from the novel coronavirus. The only way to deal with it long term is therefore to stamp it out entirely. Those countries that have succeeded (although there is always "leakage" from other countries) have employed curfews. This makes sense, because it is largely the young who are spreading the disease. The governments within the British Isles mention travel restrictions but not curfews. Is there a reason for this? Have curfews been imposed in America? Have they ever been imposed in Britain (during the Second World War, for example)? 2A00:23C4:5709:A00:858E:FA67:FFF5:1457 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was never a curfew in Britain in either world war, but the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 made pubs close at 9:30 pm. Pubs have to shut at 10 now.

When we were at junior school we learned about that beastly William I and his curfew thus:

So William decided these rebels to quell
By ringing a curfew - a sort of a bell
And if any Saxon was found out of bed
After eight o'clock sharp it was "Off with his head!" (Eleanor Farjeon and Herbert Farjeon), 1931) [12]

Perhaps some childhood memory of this tyranny is holding our lords and masters back from the brink? :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, in my state the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink has been cut off at 11:00 PM instead of 2:00 AM. No real "you can't be out after this time" curfew, but definitely removing a major factor in keeping people out late. --Khajidha (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Spooky action at a distance

On the radio last night Lynn Parsons pointed out that the next full moon will fall on Hallowe'en. Combining Hallowe'en with a full moon and a Saturday night could (in normal times) be a recipe for some very unusual happenings. This conjunction occurs, on average, once every (7 x 30) = 210 years (there being seven days in a week and about 30 days in a month). Was anything noticed the last time it happened? 2.31.65.97 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The list at [13] covers 1900-2099, 200 years. It lists 9 occurrences of a full moon on Halloween, and 2 with a full moon on Halloween on a Saturday:

• 1925 Oct 31 17:17 Sat 2424455.220
• 1944 Oct 31 13:35 Tue 2431395.066
• 1955 Oct 31 06:05 Mon 2435411.753
• 1974 Oct 31 01:20 Thu 2442351.555
• 2020 Oct 31 14:51 Sat 2459154.119
• 2039 Oct 31 22:38 Mon 2466093.443
• 2058 Oct 31 12:56 Thu 2473033.039
• 2077 Oct 31 10:38 Sun 2479972.943
• 2096 Oct 31 11:19 Wed 2486912.972

The counts line up reasonably well with your simple calculation. We have a list of events for Oct 31, 1925: October_1925#October_31,_1925_(Saturday). It will be interesting to see whether any of those events happens every time there's a full moon on Halloween on a Saturday. --Amble (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of breaching WP:CRYSTAL, I doubt that Mikhail Frunze will die again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, but after all it is 2020. --Amble (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that the date of any event depends on the time zone in use. The list that Amber posted is based on GMT. If you live in California, for example, the 1974 entry on the list does not apply because the full moon was on October 30 there, but you can add an entry for 1906 when the full moon by GMT was at 04:45 on November 1. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Technically, yes, depending on how precisely you want the moon to be full. For example, in some werewolf lore it's said that the beast transforms on "the three nights of the full moon", which is pretty generous. Matt Deres (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Full moon Saturday night Halloween in an election year for some. fiveby(zero) 21:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Here in the US where I am, it is also the night when daylight saving time ends (technically at 2:00 AM on November 1). A whole extra hour for your spooky revels.--Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Halloween has been linked to a lower-than-expected number of births and higher pedestrian-involved traffic accidents [14]. Full moons to increased male as opposed to female births and more aggressive stock market trading. [15] Saturday to youth drinking and oil tanker spills [16]. But no one seems to have investigated all three at once. As Amble’s calculation shows, there would be sample size issues. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 28

The "Crimean precedent" and realistic future forceful annexations?

per the instructions at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --Jayron32 16:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which future realistic forceful annexations do you think could be based on the "Crimean precedent"? I can think of: The Donbass, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Kokang, northern Kazakhstan, what else? Futurist110 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Viktor Orban's Hungary could conceivably want to annex some of its neighbors' territory, but this just isn't going to happen due to the fact that the other NATO countries will absolutely curb-stomp Hungary if it will ever attempt to do anything like this. Hungary's a pipsqueak! Futurist110 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I don't think Taiwan is a realistic one, at least not in terms of having many parallels to Crimea. Certainly the PRC has laid claim to the island itself, but I think I've seen any indication that the PRC government has any illusions (propaganda or otherwise) that the Han Chinese living in Taiwan desire reunification, certainly not anywhere near the claims made by the Russian Federation that they were acting to enforce the self-determination of the inhabitants. Maybe 50+ years ago when you'd see slogans like "We are determined to liberate Taiwan!" (一定要解放台湾) in Chinese propaganda. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Kosovo by Albania. The only reason Greater Albania has not happened yet is because the countries that have supported Kosovo's independence and made it possible to begin with still oppose the idea. However, if Kosovo makes no progress on getting recognized by the five remaining EU members and could not join the EU under normal circumstance, then Albania might try to annex it once the former gets own EU membership. Also Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia. Going by what they said publicly, the Armenian leadership have been much more open to outright annexation lately and when Russia annexed Crimea, Armenia unsurprisingly supported its actions and was hostile to Ukraine. However, with the way the current war is going, it might already be too late. StellarHalo (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there any electoral college bellwethers better than counties?

Like incorporated places or single precincts? No county has been perfect since before the 1950s. Can I find who won each precinct online as soon as they add to the x percent of precincts are reporting percent? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Precincts is gonna be difficult because their borders are redrawn all the time. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason why no county has been perfect since before the 1950s is because of the confusing ways the parties have shifted ideologies over time. While any one particular county may have people that may or may not retain a specific ideology over a long period of time (and let's just assume for our discussion that some particular county stays relatively the same political ideology in a broad sense) the parties have NOT necessarily represented those ideologies over that time period. Prior to the mid-20th century, the parties did not differ on a conservative-liberal axis in the way they do today. The party ideologies, as they were, would be unrecognizable on the modern political axis. Prior to the Southern strategy of the Republican party in the late 1960s and the 1980s Reagan Democrats (who became modern Republicans today), the main divide between the parties was between business and labor, and not over social issues. Democratic supported tended to be strongest among working class and Republican support tended to be strongest among the middle class. Things like racial justice, environmentalism, healthcare, etc. that divide the parties today along "conservative" and "liberal" lines were not found at that time. Indeed, one could find (in a modern sense) "liberal" and "conservative" members of both parties in equal measures; it just wasn't how the parties were divided up. This was a time when both Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a progressive northern liberal, and Strom Thurmond, a conservative southerner, could both be members of the Democratic Party, while Nelson Rockefeller, a progressive northern liberal, and Jesse Helms, a conservative southerner, could both be members of the Republican Party. This started to change during the 30-year period of about 1964 (when Barry Goldwater began to push the idea that the Republican Party would be the socially conservative party) through 1994 (when the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution flipped the House of Representatives to the Red side for the first time since the 1930s. There are a LOT of reasons for these transitions, probably too many to go into right now, and it was a long complicated process, and in some ways it isn't completely done (consider there are still liberal Republicans like Susan Collins, Bill Weld, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney and still conservative Democrats like the Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrats (of which Clinton, Obama, and Biden are clearly part of, if you look at their political positions rather than what their opponents say about them). Anyways, this has probably already rambled on too much, but in summary, the real reason why you aren't likely to find a consistent bellweather county in the U.S. since the 1950s is that the reasons why people vote for certain candidates, and the parties themselves, have evolved SO MUCH since then. --Jayron32 12:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Well Vigo County, Indiana last voted for the electoral college loser in 1952 and is the best whose borders haven't changed much (likely no change) in the meanwhile. Throw a lot more than ~3,000 dice and it's possible to beat Terre Haute County, they just have to like Ike again and not change borders. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the territory of the Spanish Sahara?

[Already asked and answered on the Miscellaneous desk.] --174.95.161.129 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine Armenians

My search suggests there were so many Armenians in the Byzantine Empire largely or exclusively because Byzantine Armenia was incorporated into the empire. But that doesn't explain everything to me, because I doubt that all Armenians at the time outnumbered other major ethnic groups in the Byzantine Empire, given that they also included the descendants of ancient Romans and various European tribes. Were there other factors contributing to the greater presence of Armenians there and among Byzantine emperors, perhaps subservience / greater loyalty / sycophancy to the Byzantines? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Khey Pard on youtube has two interesting map videos: The History of Armenia : Every Year & The History of the Caucasus : Every Year.
Sleigh (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 29

Discovery of the Mississippi (October 19)

Paul Hayes' brainteaser on Magic Radio at 12:10 yesterday afternoon was "before Mount Everest was discovered, which was the highest mountain in the world?" (answer at the end). This was the subject of another quiz question on the same radio station a few weeks back - "Which mountain's name is wrongly pronounced?" Answer: Mount Everest. George Everest (after whom the mountain was named) pronounced his name Everest. The mountain was, as Jayron points out in the discussion, almost certainly "discovered" in prehistoric times. Answer to brainteaser: Mount Everest, of course! 212.159.12.93 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)