Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

February 13

Separatist movements in Afghanistan?

Were there ever any serious separatist movements in Afghanistan? Also, if not, why not? Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For contemporary movements see Afghan Civil War (1992-96), Afghan Civil War (1996-2001), Taliban, Northern Alliance-Abdul Muhsy (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those actually involved separatist movements, though–did they? Futurist110 (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a Hazara nationalist movement which wants independence for Hazarajat, a region in central Afghanistan. --Antiquary (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just how long did this desire actually exist on their part? Also, it would be rather hard to have an independent Hazarajat without also stripping Afghanistan of at least some of its northern territories, no? Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pushtun vs. non-Pushtun has been an issue for many years, and during the second half of the 1990s it was one of the motivating issues of the Taliban vs. Northern Alliance civil war. But it seems that both sides wanted to dominate all of Afghanistan, rather than separating from it. AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was one group of the Maoist stream, Settam-e-Melli, which pressed heavily for the Marxism and the National Question line adapted to Afghan context, which would presumably have included right to self-determination. The Settamis were accused of separatism, although I don't know how accurate that label would have been. --Soman (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any relevant links in regards to this? Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_9674-544-2-30.pdf (Relating to the 1950s) "In Northern Afghanistan, Ittehad wa Taraqi, or ‘Unity and Progress’, a group that followed pan-Turkist ideas and mainly worked underground, also had representatives in the Wolesi Jirga and cooperated with Jabha-ye Mell.i29 [...] 29 Led by two brothers, the Faryab MP Muhammad Nazar Nawa and Abu-l-Khair Khairi, it is said to have laterpromoted the strategy of an armed uprising which would make it a predecessor of Settam-e Melli. The name is thesame one used by the constitutionalist Young Turks movement that emerged around 1870 in the Ottoman Empire.This group has only recently been mentioned in the literature."

"In August 1968, Settam-e Melli, or ‘[Against] National Oppression’,38 led by Taher Badakhshi, broke away [from PDPA] because it considered the ‘national question’ more important than the ‘class question’. Settam-e Melli mixed left-wing, nationalist rhetoric with a ‘Maoist’ approach, concentrating on rural mobilisation."

From https://www.platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/hallidayfred_afghanrev1978_NLR10901.pdf "This called itself Settami Melli (NationalOppression) and was, as its name implied, composed almost exclusivelyof non-Pushtuns—Badakhshi came from a Tajik area in the North-East.It proclaimed itself Marxist-Leninist, and denounced both Khalq andParcham as agents of the Pushtun ruling class. The policies of Settami Melliwere pro-Chinese and anti-Pushtun. This meant first and foremost animplacable hostility to the concept of Pushtunistan: China was by thistime in close alliance with Pakistan, and saw Pushtunistan as an attemptby the Soviet Union to dismember its ally. Moreover, the non-Pushtunsin Settami Melli saw a ‘Greater Afghanistan’ as threatening to increaseeven further the predominance of the Pushtuns within the country. Thiscoincidence of positions led later to its logical conclusion—armedstruggle by the non-Pushtun peasantry against the Mohammadzai régimeand, implicity, its Soviet allies. Again the details are unclear, but it seemsthat after Daud’s accession to power and a general worsening in bothAfghan-Pakistani and Soviet-Chinese relations, a group of Settami Mellimilitants were given military training by Bhutto in Peshawar, capital ofthe North-West Frontier, and then sent back into Afghanistan. Therethey launched a series of attacks on police and army stations in the PanjSheri region of Badakhsan province in August 1975. After some clashes,most of the surviving Settami Melli militants were captured by theRussian-equipped army and taken to Kabul, where they were allsubsequently murdered in captivity by Daud. Taher Badakhshi and theremains of the organization went underground." (notably this narrative, on supposed Pakistani sponsorship of Settam and link to the Panjsheri uprising is criticized by other scholars) --Soman (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North v south Yemen

Does anyone know (or can figure out--admittedly I've not looked into it that far myself) why North Yemen and South Yemen are designated as such, when it's clearly less of North v South and more of West v East? Aza24 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just conjecture because I can't find any stats, but it seems likely that the bulk of the population and economic activity is around Aden in the bottom left corner, which is indeed south of North Yemen. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for vaguely the same reason that Lower Canada was farther north than Upper Canada? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 12:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Canada was downstream of Upper Canada, and water flows downhill. That's usually what "upper" and "lower" meant in the old days (i.e. the "lower" was downstream or closer to the sea). "Baja California" and "Alta California" may be an exception...

As for Yemen, Aden the capital of South Yemen was pretty much south of Sanaa the capital of North Yemen. AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California is lower in elevation than Alta California. Alta California was much bigger than the U.S. state of California, and it was drained by the Colorado River, primarily, which flowed from north to south. Today the Baja California Peninsula is divided into two states, the southern of which is called Baja California Sur, being Spanish for south. Again, Baja (lower) in this context still comes from the same place that the lower in Lower Canada and Lower Egypt came from; being generally lower in elevation. --Jayron 32 14:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, neither North Yemen or South Yemen used these denominations officially I believe. However, the pre-independence liberation movement Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen used the name 'South Yemen'. Here a 1871 work using the term 'South Yemen' ([1]) --Soman (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question came from the Southern Separatist Movement, which seem to claim the same historical south as a region they want independent. Aza24 (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is hardly any population living in the easternmost provinces of South Yemen part of whose area is slightly further north than North Yemen. The bulk of the population lives in the western part, which is clearly south of North Yemen. Xuxl (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that much of the lines along the north of both of those countries, especially during the 1970s and 1980s when the two countries existed, were lines on paper only. The actual borders with Saudi Arabia during the time period were ill-defined and the region of the Arabian Desert they crossed are very lightly populated. As you can see From this map, in terms of population density, the areas of South Yemen that could be described as "north" of North Yemen are very lightly populated indeed. These geographic oddities aren't confined to North/South Yemen either. Virginia extends further west than West Virginia, near where I grew up are two high schools, Nashua High School North lies south of Nashua High School South, Suffolk County, Massachusetts (south folk) lies north of Norfolk County, Massachusetts (north folk). Welcome to the imperfect world of humans. --Jayron 32 14:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar issue with Northern Ireland. It really ought to be called North-Eastern Ireland, since the most northerly part of the island of Ireland is not in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the great majority of Northern Ireland's land area is to the north of the great majority of the Republic of Ireland's land area, few people would be bothered by such technical geographic anomalies. AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to introduce myself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

If a recall election for Gavin Newsom is placed on the ballot, would Newsom's campaign be allowed to take funds raised for his 2022 reelection campaign and re-allocate them towards defeating the recall election? 66.234.210.119 (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu! It could well depend on state election laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. I have no idea. I suspect even if it is permissible, it would be undesirable since contributions to Newsom's recall defense committee do not appear to be subject to contribution limits, whereas contributions to his reelection committee would presumably be subject to contribution limits. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

Civil wars where a separatist movement was crushed but at a high cost

Which cases where there where there was a civil war where a separatist movement was crushed but at a high cost? I can think of the American Civil War, the Vietnam War, the Iraqi Civil War (insofar as the ISIS Caliphate was a de facto separatist movement), and the Nigerian Civil War (aka Biafran War). However, which additional examples of this have there been? For the record, I am well-aware of other highly destructive civil wars–such as the Russian Civil War–but as far as I know the Russian Whites were not separatists–and neither were, say, the various factions in the Afghan Civil Wars that occurred starting from 1989 (and lasting all of the way up to the present-day, over 30 years later). I am also aware of other destructive separatist movements such as the Kashmir conflict, though I am unsure if its scale was actually sufficiently large for it to actually be described as a civil war. Indeed, I want to specifically focus on civil wars that involved separatist movements that ended up being crushed but at a high cost. Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Sri_Lankan_Civil_War. -Abdul Muhsy (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent example! I wanted to include this later on, but I forgot about it! So, thank you for mentioning it! Futurist110 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See State of Katanga and Rif War. Xuxl (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples! Futurist110 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland 1960-1990 Farawayman (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that qualification, that conflict was far more complicated than simply a "separatist movement", and nothing was crushed, a peace agreement was reached. Also, your dates are wrong, 1969-1998 would be more accurate. Fgf10 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also depends on your definition of high cost: "During the period 1976–1993, most years saw 60–100 deaths related to The Troubles, or around 4.0–6.5/100,000 per annum" compared with "Manhattan continued to have the highest homicide rate in 1976, with 38.8 murders for each 100,000 residents". Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no. Estimates vary, but that is just wrong. I'd go by the figure in our own article, which is over 3500. Documented UK militarily losses alone run in the hundreds. Fgf10 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a separatist movement, but a unionist movement. Bumptump (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the goal was to separate from the United Kingdom, but not to create a new, independent state but to join the Republic of Ireland. So, it was both a separatist and a unionist movement? Futurist110 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two lots of terrorists, one wanted out and one wanted to stay in. No win either way. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think earlier Irish rebellions would better fit, as they were i) usually more obviously separatist/independence movements, and ii) killed a lot more people. Iapetus (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms had a separatist element, especially after the execution of Charles I and the rise of Oliver Cromwell in England, while Charles II's support remained strong in Scotland and Ireland. --Jayron 32 14:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone on Martineau

Our article on James Martineau says "William Ewart Gladstone said of Martineau; "he is beyond question the greatest of living thinkers". This is referenced to Jackson, A. W. James Martineau - A Biography and Study.. In fact, as far as I can tell from Google Books, the phrase does not appear in the book. The source is in fact a Goodreads review, as "William Ewart Gladstone said to Frances Power Cobbe, "Martineau is beyond question the greatest of living thinkers."" The only results for Google searches for the quotation are the Goodreads review and obvious cribs of our article. Can anyone find an actual source for the alleged quotation? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! It's alright, I've found it in Cobbe, Frances Power (1904). "London in the Sixties and Seventies". Life of Frances Power Cobbe as Told by Herself. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co, Lim. p. 509. DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Eastwater Point?

According to our Channel Tunnel article "In 1839, Aimé Thomé de Gamond, a Frenchman, performed the first geological and hydrographical surveys on the Channel, between Calais and Dover. Thomé de Gamond explored several schemes and, in 1856, he presented a proposal to Napoleon III for a mined railway tunnel from Cap Gris-Nez to Eastwater Point with a port/airshaft on the Varne sandbank" - but I cannot find Eastwater Point except in articles borrowing from us. Anyone know where it is? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typo (or just plain wrong). According to Channel Tunnel Visions, 1850-1945 (p. 6), the location was Eastwear Bay, nowadays generally spelt East Wear Bay. No Wikipedia article but it gets a mention in East Cliff and Warren Country Park. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Chronologie du tunnel sous la Manche says: "1855, projet de l'ingénieur français Aimé Thomé de Gamond, qui propose un tunnel entre le cap Gris-Nez (Pas-de-Calais) et Eastwear-Point, avec des cheminées d'aération en pleine mer et la création d'une île artificielle au banc de Varnes, qui abriterait une gare maritime". Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Wear Point also gets a vote from Channel Tunnel, 1802-1967 (p. 10); "it was to be twenty - one miles long from Cap Gris Nez to East Wear Point ; at these places it would slope towards the surface to link with existing railways.

The headland forming the western limit of East Wear Bay is marked as Copt Point by the Ordnance Survey, which may be the same place. There isn't much of a headland at the eastern end, but there is Abbott's Cliff and Lyddon Spout, close to the modern tunnel. Alansplodge (talk)

@Alansplodge: Thank you, I'm now finding it also called "Eastware Point", for example here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because nobody can find it on a map, they just make up a spelling. We ought to go with the Ordnance Survey. BTW, can you imagine Lord Palmerston approving this French tunnel? In 1860, he pushed through the biggest scheme of fortifications in British history to keep the French out which cost £9 million (equivalent to £1,182,200,000 in 2023). Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Ostenso

I am writing an article on Martha Ostenso, in Norwegian. As you may know, she was a Norwegian-born writer and published both novels and short stories. Most of the short stories were published in magazines that where very popular reading in the USA in her time. I have had the opportunity to write several articles on a lot of US ladies magazines, but I am missing three of them:

I would be very satisfied if you could post the articles, or alternatively give me information on them. --Trygve W Nodeland (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Resource Exchange can help you look up books, journals and magazines. It's mainly designed to look up a reference in a resource you don't have paid access to. But the folks there might be willing to tell you about these magazines. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References for Canadian Home Journal: Brief overview and some 1930s issues, pre First World War issues more issues 1909-1922. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! --Trygve W Nodeland (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Process of winning a Nobel Prize

How does one get nominated and win a Nobel Prize? I am looking for general information on how does a person or an organization get even nominated for these prestigious awards. Does one have to do extraordinary things for humanity to achieve this award? Is this award harder to win than gambling like winning the lottery? I am absolutely not looking for advice or assistance on how to win one for myself. 47.145.113.238 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the people nominated for and awarded Nobel Prizes in their various areas have made some remarkable achievements in the subject area for which the Prize is awarded. I think gambling is a poor analogy given (at least ideally) gambling is a pure game of chance, whereas the class of people who are nominated for and awarded Nobel Prizes (again, at least ideally) have dedicated themselves and their remarkable talents to the pursuit. I do take it from the way your question is worded, however, you're more interested in the Nobel Peace Prize, which is far less geared towards people like scholars in peace studies than, say, the Nobel Prize in Physics is geared towards scholars in physics. In general, you should read Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination and selection. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily "extraordinary things". See Barack Obama. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say a black man getting elected President of the United States was an extraordinary achievement in itself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that contributed to world peace how? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama himself said that he felt "surprised" by the win and did not consider himself worthy of the award, but nonetheless accepted it.[103][104][105][106][107]" As SNL put it: "I got it for not being George Bush." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the size of the bucket of Nobel prizes Biden is going to get for not being Trump. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of a revolution or regime change unleashing worse evils afterwards in comparison to the previously overthrown regime?

Which cases were there where a revolution or regime change unleased worse evils in comparison to the previously overthrown regime? So far, I can think of:

The French Revolution, which replaced the Ancien regime of the House of Bourbon with the Reign of Terror after a period of initial liberalism
The Russian Revolution, which replaced Tsarist Russia with Communist rule after a period of initial liberalism in the form of the Russian Provisional Government
Cambodia, where Lon Nol's regime was replaced with the EXTREMELY murderous Khmer Rouge in 1975
Iran, where the Shah's regime was replaced with the Islamic Republic of Iran–as in, a regime led by Ayatollahs
Afghanistan, where Mohammad Najibullah's regime was replaced with civil war and eventually Taliban rule
Iraq, where Saddam Hussein's regime was replaced with civil war and eventually the rise of ISIS. One thing that Iraqis could be grateful for, of course, is that ISIS never actually conquered the Shi'a-majority and Kurdish-majority parts of Iraq. Likewise, no part of Iraq's capital Baghdad ever actually fell to ISIS.
Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi's regime was replaced with civil war and even the rise of the Islamic State in Libya

Which additional examples actually qualify for this? Futurist110 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The American Revolution led to a regime with (eventually) higher taxes than those that provoked it. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When were US taxes higher than British taxes? Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Whiskey Rebellion. In addition, most states levied a form of poll tax as well as local excise duties according to this. At what date that exceeded 3d on a packet of tea I can't tell. This line of argument assumes that tax is "evil" rather than a commendable contribution to the common good. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also grossly misrepresents one of the main causes of the American Revolution. The colonists were not mad about taxes per se. The colonists were mad about their lack of representation in Parliament. The motto of the revolution No taxation without representation, was that the colonists felt that as British Subjects, they were owed commensurate elective representation in the same Parliament that was extracting taxes from them. I'm pretty sure most of the revolutionaries were well aware of the necessity of funding a well-working government, and that taxes were necessary to do so. What was the issue was that, in their view, the right of said government to collect said taxes was contingent upon representatives of the people being involved in passing the laws in question. The without representation part is doing the heavy lifting in that slogan. The first part is just there to give it a more memorable poetic punch. --Jayron 32 17:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was trying to answer Futurist's question about US taxes exceeding British, and secondly, that this case doesn't fit the OP's criteria. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed. Read my reply as an elaboration, and not a refutation, of your apt answer. --Jayron 32 13:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the Irish were particularly fond of the rule of Oliver Cromwell in comparison to that of the House of Stuart. --Jayron 32 14:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba after Fidel Castro's revolution. The Chinese Communist Revolution also brought us the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, neither of which was a pleasant walk in the park. It's actually a common trope with most revolutions: "Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children" (Jacques Mallet du Pan). Xuxl (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Cuba was, domestically, all that bad off after the end of the Revolution. There was some turmoil during the revolution itself (revolutions are, by definition, tumultuous events) but other than international ramifications for Cuba's relations to other (mostly non-Communist) countries, within Cuba things were not particularly bad. Other than the members of the Batista regime itself, I don't know that the Cuban regime was markedly worse than the Batista regime, which itself was rather brutal to its citizenry, and there is an argument to be made that fairly quickly, living conditions improved for many people in Cuban society. To be sure, Cuba was not a utopia, but Castro's Cuba did not end up significantly worse than Batista's Cuba. --Jayron 32 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Life expectancy in Cuba is higher than that of the US" [2] Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really live longer, or does it just seem longer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The basic fallacy of the question is to presume that there would exist a universal measuring stick for 'evil'. Was the impact of the French revolution positive or negative for mankind? The French revolution ushered paths for democracy and human rights, but it also gave rise to modern nationalism and bloody wars. It might be too early to tell what the final outcome was. But if your question is understood as, cases were an repressive regime was overthrown but another even more repressive regime came into power immediately afterwards, yes there are plenty such examples. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought too... I'm not sure how to quantify "evil", and how to even give numbers to such a concept to know how one regime can be measured as "more" evil than another. --Jayron 32 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Zhou En-Lai didn't say what he is said to have said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and here's another aspect that came to mind with the French Revolution example in particular: how do you weigh acute evils of a few years/decades to chronic evils that might never have been removed without that spasm? The Reign of Terror article suggests that about 30,000 people died over the span of a year and a half. I wonder how many people annually starved while eating cake under the previous regime? Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question I've wondered, but as you say, quantifying "evil" is pretty difficult. Maybe a better question to ask would be "how many revolutions succeeded?" Which is also a difficult question, but I think a bit easier to define, if you look at the goals of the revolutionaries, and how well they were achieved. Iapetus (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

The Dneister: An international(ized) river?

Is the Dneister actually an international(ized) river free for any country to use without any conditions or requirements? Futurist110 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you wonder that? I'm not sure there is a truly internationalized river in that sense, even those forming international borders. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about the wisdom of having Russia annex Transnistria and subsequently being able to access it without ever actually having to go through any other country's borders. Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How funny, I just saw a travelogue about Transnistria the other day. My take is that if Transnistria formally became Russian territory, and thus Russia having a port on the Dniester, there should be grounds for Russia to demand access to the more southern waters of the Dniester so as to reach that port. But I'm not 100% sure exactly how it works. I suspect that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea may govern (see also Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States). A similar (at least to my ear) dispute is had between the U.S. and Canada over the Northwest Passage. That's over straits rather than a river, but again, my gut instinct is that it's a legally similar situation. The main difference is that the U.S. is not a party to the UNCLOS. Russia is. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that whether Russia is allowed to access Transnistria by sea without it ever actually being at the mercy of any other country by doing this might be the decisive factor in whether or not Russia will ever outright annex Transnistria if Moldova will ever join the European Union. Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, what am I thinking. If Russia fully controlled Transnistria they should be able to access the port there under the principle of innocent passage. The seminal case for this was in the early postwar years when some British ships tried to navigate the straits of Corfu and hit Albanian mines. It was entirely necessary for the ships to enter Albanian waters to reach the port at Corfu. UNCLOS may override that to some extent, but the fact that Transnistria would be an enclaved exclave with no other means of reaching it by sea really should be determinative. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of Lake Constance at the edges of which three international borders stop. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:61ED:99C9:1218:5015 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Constance is a little different though, it's a de facto Condominium between the three countries in question: Each country has joint sovereign control over the lake (or functionally does, even if not formalized in law). It is unlike a fully "internationalized" body of water, which is open to all people to access, as with the open oceans. --Jayron 32 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

South Vietnamese claims on North Vietnam?

During its existence, did South Vietnam ever lay any territorial claims on North Vietnam? I know that North Vietnam obviously laid territorial claims on South Vietnam–hence its ultimately successful attempts to conquer it during the Vietnam War. However, what about the reverse? Futurist110 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nationalist independence movement, from its inception around the early 20th century, aspired independence of a unified country corresponding to present-day Vietnam. When independence was declared on 2 September 1945, it was for the whole territory. During the subsequent First Indochina War, France created a puppet state in 1949, the State of Vietnam, thereby partitioning the fledgling country. France lost control of its puppet state in 1955 after Ngô Đình Diệm took control and proclaimed the Republic of Vietnam. The nationalists, who had maintained control over the northern part, never gave up on the aspiration of a reunified Vietnam. It is difficult to draw a line between irredentism and reunification, but I doubt that "territorial claims" is the most appropriate label for the situation. Did West Germany have territorial claims on East Germany? --Lambiam 05:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, West Germany did have territorial claims on East Germany. Did South Vietnam actually have territorial claims on North Vietnam, though? Futurist110 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like many places, the history of Vietnam is complex and varied over its long history. Historically, the area had often been divided into two different states; pre-colonial times saw different states with a roughly north-south divide, while at various times the whole territory was united under one state, it was not often (or even common) to be so. North Vietnam was, at various times, under Chinese control as Chinese Annam, or as the independent or semi-independent states of Đàng Ngoài or Đại Việt (which also at times extended control over South Vietnam) while the south was largely controlled by the state of Champa, and populated by a different ethnic group known as the Chams, many of which over time either migrated or were assimilated into the Đại Việt people to form the modern Vietnamese people. Even the French divided the country into three different polities, Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina, and the three regions were further combined with Laos and Cambodia into a single administration, French Indochina. Vietnam had been united for much of the 19th century under the Nguyễn dynasty, however, the French had assisted the Dynasty in their rise to power (see French assistance to Nguyễn Ánh) and they used this as leverage to exert increasing control over Vietnam, by the late 19th century the Nguyễn emperors were largely French puppets and France had effectively divided the country again into multiple regions for administration. In the last 500 years, Vietnam has only been a united, independent state from about 1802-1887 and since 1976. --Jayron 32 13:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the situation before 1802 like? Futurist110 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically three states, as shown at File:Vietnam at the end of 18th century (Vi).png, from north to south these were semi-independent kingdoms controlled by Quang Trung, Nguyễn Nhạc, and Gia Long from north to south. Gia Long was also known as Nguyễn Ánh and was the one to unify the country under one dynasty. --Jayron 32 13:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War and Peace by Tolstoy

How many words in the original translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.105.90 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what language? The first translation of War and Peace into English was by American Nathan Haskell Dole, in 1899. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the answer if you Google "how many words in war and peace", or you can take a look at our article on List of longest novels.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The wiki article gives two numbers, which are the Dunnigan and Gifford/Maude translations, not the Dole translation. 49.180.105.90, if you need the number of words in Dole’s translation specifically, best I can suggest is something like downloading it from https://archive.org/stream/warandpeace01dolegoog/warandpeace01dolegoog_djvu.txt and https://archive.org/stream/warandpeace00dolegoog/warandpeace00dolegoog_djvu.txt, paste it into Word and use the word count feature. But you’d have to spend some time stripping out the google boilerplate and decide if you also want to strip out things like page numbers, chapter titles, chapter summaries, translator’s introduction, etc. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we read "49.180.105.90"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! Silly me. I thought you were telling us the number of pages, but you were addressing the unregistered OP. (Blush). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to count the pages and derive an average number of words per page for an approximation. Xuxl (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However many words there are, it might be interesting to know how many were about War and how many were about Peace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Alexander Smith, biologist

Can anyone kindly furnish biographical data for George Alexander Smith (d:Q105533228), who was "Appointed Boy Attendant in Zoology Department" of the British Museum (Natural History) in November 1896 (so born circa 1882?) and worked there until at least 1927? All we have so far are four papers he wrote, as listed in Wikispecies, and his NHM record. As always, a death date would enable us to determine the copyright status of his works. Did he serve in WWI? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Died May 19, 1933, aged 49, if this is him? snippet view result: “OBITUARIES: We regret to record the death, on 19th May, of Mr. George Alexander Smith, in his fiftieth year. Mr. Smith had been for thirty-five years on the staff of the Natural History Museum, London, and took part in the Training Course for Curators held last October.” 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s also an obituary at [https://books.google.com/books?id=qyxEAAAAYAAJ&q=%22george+alexander+smith%22 – again snippet view only and I can’t see anything but his name and “Obituary” but perhaps WP:RX can get you the article. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds, thank you - I've requested the latter, at RX. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett - found by repeatedly Googling quotes from the snippet view of the Natural History Magazine:

"MR. G. A. Smith entered the service of the Trustees as a Boy Attendant in 1896. At first he worked with the late Professor Jeffrey Bell and one of his earliest tasks must have been to assist in removing the collection of Crustacea from the Old Spirit Building to what was then the "Challenger" Room in the basement of the East Wing and is now the Rock Room of the Mineral Department. When I first visited the Museum in 1898 this removal was still incomplete and Smith was busily engaged on it. At that time Professor Bell had under his charge a very varied assemblage of animal groups which are now cared for by some half - dozen Assistant Keepers , and it was while working with him that Smith acquired the interest in Echinoderma which he retained until the end of his life. In later years when that group of animals, together with the Annelids , was allocated to a single Assistant Keeper , who found his hands sufficiently full in the study of Polychaeta, Smith's knowledge of the Echinoderma was of great assistance and many overseas visitors have paid warm tribute to the help he gave them . Perhaps Smith's experiences in the War , when he served in the Royal Army Medical Corps, did a good deal towards developing the organizing capacity and power of taking responsibility which were afterwards shown when as Higher Grade Clerk he was put in charge of the Subordinate Staff in the New Spirit Building. In this position he was responsible for the ordering and distribution of bottles, spirit , and laboratory supplies , and also for a great amount of detail , principally in connexion with the supply of collectors' gear and the equipment of expeditions..."

I ran out of steam at that point. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THE LONDON GAZETTE, 10 DECEMBER, 1919 lists a Capt. George Alexander .Smith, M.C., 13th Fid. Amb., Can. A.M.C which seems to be the Canadian Army Medical Corps, so not sure if it's the same one.

Certainly not the same one is Captain George Alexander Smith MC, a Native American chief and father of Harry Jay Smith, aka Jay Silverheels, aka Tonto. :-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full obituary has been found here (in a volume published in 1932, hence not found by searches limited to 1931 or 1933). This puts his death in 1932, not 1933. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sorge's reburial

Per Richard Sorge#Death, "after hounding the American occupation authorities, Sorge's Japanese lover, Hanako Ishii" located his body, cremated it and eventually had his ashes interred at Tama Cemetery. Meanwhile Russian wikiarticle and some Russian sources, such as this, say that in 1967 American occupation authorities reburied him with military honors at that cemetery. But American occupation of Japan ended in 1952, so is that a fake or sort of a misrepresentation? Brandmeister^talk 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the United States government would have wished to honor him in the first place. The U.S. occupation of the Ryukyu islands part of Japan continued until 1972, but that doesn't seem relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it called the Committee of Public Safety?

During the Reign of Terror, power in France was mostly held by the Committee of Public Safety (in French: "Comité de salut public"). What were the origins of this name? It's pretty clear that, at least by the height of the Reign of Terror, this Committee had fairly little to do with public safety. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "public safety" was a reference to those who wanted to stop the French Revolution and to undo its achievements and accomplishments, no? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my struggle with the phrase is that the idea of a committee to address "public safety" sounds like one that's actually going to deal with safety, rather than generalized government. I'm just curious if there was a narrower mandate when this committee was originally named, or if the idea of it dealing with "public safety" was false from the beginning. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the logic was that the safety of the public would genuinely be threatened if the Ancien regime were to ever return to power and begin hunting down alleged revolutionaries, including among the general public? Futurist110 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some similarity to the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart and Vocational Education and Training Centers. If you're going to oppress people, at least some of them might be persuaded that it's for their own good. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such things are fairly dime a dozen IMO. E.g. the State Law and Order Restoration Council, later renamed the State Peace and Development Council. This time around, they went for the more bland State Administration Council. By a similar token, it's a classic meme that any country which see the need to add Democractic to their name probably isn't particularly democratic in the sense most people use it. (Political parties are a little different.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of French salut is more one of salvation than of safety, and public can mean "national". The committee was originally instituted, on 6 April 1793, to save France from imminent doom. It was the de facto government. --Lambiam 12:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this 1805 French-English dictionary which translates salut as "safety, welfare, life". The committee's name is sometimes translated as "Committee of Public Welfare". Surely it must owe something to the legal maxim salus populi [sometimes quoted as publica] suprema lex esto, "the good of the people should be the supreme law". --Antiquary (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee was not envisioned to be "the government" of France. The government at the time the Committee was created was the National Convention, and it had both executive and legislative powers. As legislative bodies do, it created a number of committees to handle various aspects of governance, and created two committees in 1792-1793: the Committee of General Security and the Committee of Public Safety. Most of the work of the Convention was on "protecting the revolution from its enemies" and it created a number of committees like this with generic names and ill-defined boundaries. It was never really clear (even at the time) what the difference between the two committees was beyond the concentration of political power in the hands of those who led them. The Committee of General Security already existed and was supposedly doing the job of rooting out enemies of the revolution and prosecuting them, but the Convention's leaders got freaked out by the surprise defection of General Dumouriez, and created a new committee to work alongside the Committee of General Security and supplement its work, which is why it was given the largely synonymous name of "Committee of Public Safety". So now France had two committees whose job it was to root out enemies of the revolution, and it's really the rivalry between the two groups that led to the Terror, as each committee sought to out do the other in defending the Revolution. General Security initially had the greater cache, with such leaders as Jean-Paul Marat and Jacques-Louis David on it. Public Safety's creation gave some of their rivals, initially Georges Danton, and more prominently later, Maximilien Robespierre, access to power as well. If you're not confused yet, you should be. Trying to understand the shifting allegiances and various internal divisions within the French Revolution is really Three-dimensional chess. I haven't even brought up groups like the Jacobins, the Girondins, the Montagnards, the Hébertists, the Dantonists, the Cordeliers, etc. etc. etc. The simplest way to answer "Why was it called "Public Safety"", the answer is "Because there was already a Committee of General Security, and they needed a similar name because they were doing the same thing" and the answer to "Why even have a new committee to do the same thing" is "because the people who created it wanted to tap in to some of the political power of the older committee". It's a giant mess when you really get into it. --Jayron 32 13:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
During the American Revolution, the colonies were run by Committees of safety as was England after Charles I (Committee of Safety (England)). It may just be the term of art. Rmhermen (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Iran's war aims during the Iran-Iraq War

Other than overthrowing Saddam Hussein, wanting to set up an Islamic republic in Iraq similar to the Iranian model, and possibly forcing Iraq to pay reparations to Iran for starting the Iran-Iraq War, did Iran have any other war aims during the Iran-Iraq War? For instance, would it have also wanted to spread its revolution even further to other countries–for instance, to Kuwait, to Saudi Arabia, to the other Gulf monarchies, et cetera–by force, if necessary? Or would Iran have been satisfied with the war aims that I mentioned in my first sentence here–and would thus have not insisted on getting even more than this even if it would have won the Iran-Iraq War? Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran didn't start the war, so the first Iranian "aim" at the beginning was to survive and expel the invader from its territory. AnonMoos (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what about after Iraq was kicked out of all Iranian territory? Futurist110 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per AnonMoos, and as is rather obvious in reading the article you linked, Iraq was the aggressor in the war. Iraq's primary goal was purely territorial/economic. Iraq sought to annex Khuzestan, which has a large, lucrative oil fields, and a viable port in the city of Abadan. See File:Map of the frontlines in the Iran-Iraq War.jpg, which shows the location of the oil fields Iraq wanted. The port was really important because, while Iraq has a nominal coastline it lacks any real port, making it essentially land-locked and dependent on its neighbors for imports and exports. Abadan is also one of the major oil refining centers of the world, something Iraq also needed. A secondary goal was to cripple the Islamic Republic itself, being a Shi'a-led theocracy. Iraq, remember was led by the Ba'ath Party, which was a nominally-Sunni-but-really-mostly-secularist pan-Arabic party. They had no historic interest in Iranian territory per se, and they used the rationale of stopping the Iranian regime from exporting the Islamic Revolution, (Iraq has a majority Shi'a population, remember) and they also saw the war as a pre-emptive strike. Iran really had no offensive goals. Their aim was to defend their territory, and perhaps to extract some measure of retribution on Iraq for the unprovoked attack. Once it became clear that Iraq couldn't accomplish its goals to gain oil fields, refineries, and a port city from Iran, the war ended in August 1988, and Iraq soon began planning to invade Kuwait, which they did two years later for pretty much the exact same reasons. --Jayron 32 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well-aware of what Iraq's goals in this war were, though I did not know specifically about Abadan. That said, though, Iran could have ended the war back in 1982 if all it would have wanted was to kick Iraq out of all of its territory. Futurist110 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're referring to Operation Ramadan, which was controversial even among the high offices in Iran. Yes, you are correct that by 1982, Iran had decided to change its aims and export the Iranian revolution across the region. --Jayron 32 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brothel newspaper ad reminder

I'm looking for a probably made-up funny "warning" I read about (I think it was in refdesk archives) that said something like "When will the shameful house of sin be shut down, the one owned by the terrible Madame Blancharde, located at 123 Main Street, open at six PM nightly, for a cost of only seven shillings? When?" It cracked me up and I'd like to read it again and know where it came from. Temerarius (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's an anecdote that's been circulating in various forms. I encountered it in a French-language magazine during the 1980s (about a scandalous dancer, not a brothel). I've never seen it in English until now... AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably the one who wrote the Ref.Desk passage you remembered (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_May_10), but I was loosely paraphrasing what I remembered from the French-language magazine in the 1980s, and don't have any additional information to offer... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Maxwell Armfield's best-known painting?

Maxwell Armfield's best-known painting is probably that on the cover of Fleetwood Mac's 1969 album Then Play On. It was featured in the February 1917 edition of The Countryside magazine, which says that the mural was originally designed for the dining room of a London mansion. See here. I would like to know a) the London mansion, and the client, and b) where is it now? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Addendum: According to the CD inlay it was in the John Jesse Collection - John Jesse was an English art dealer who sold his collection at Sotheby's in 2006 and died in 2019. DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article names the painting Domesticated Mural Painting, however I think this is a misunderstanding that has been now re-packaged all over the internet making it hard to find out the correct information. It turns out the painting was featured in an article in the magazine that Armfield wrote, the title of the article was "Domesticated Mural Painting", as you can see Here, note 47 on page 31. The title of the painting is thus most certainly not Domesticated Mural Painting, but the wrong title has been in the Wikipedia article long enough that the internet has reproduced the wrong name all over the place. Perhaps if we could find the actual name of the painting, it would help to track it down? --Jayron 32 13:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Yes, I was reaching the same conclusion about the name myself. I've edited the articles accordingly. Might add it to my list on my userpage DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a1) Not clear if you have a copy of the 1917 magazine? If not, there is a lengthy quote from it in the comments of this post [3] that describes the room in much more detail than your “see here” link does. But it does not, alas, give you the name of the house or owner.

(a2) If you think if might have been his own house, per [4], the Armfields moved from the Cotswolds to a studio in Glebe Place, Chelsea, after November 1912 and lived there until they left for America in 1915. Per Glebe Place, this was No. 39.

(b) The window for finding its move out of the John Jesse collection is wide – from the ‘60s to 2006. Sources: Jesse obituary, Sothebys press release, auction catalogue. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mural is shown and described in the article,^[5] but not named. It was designed for the dining-room of a London mansion and placed above the fireplace. --Lambiam 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: It's cicumstantial, but the description of his work Aries at [6] shows that he painted decoration for his own house. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full 1917 article is here. Not much help. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Mick Fleetwood's dining room, or maybe a copy, but he could probably afford the original. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source does say "the Maxell Armfield painting" (emphasis added). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, misspelling the artist's given name. But note that this is followed by an attributive clause. In full, the noun phrase (with the typo corrected) is: the Maxwell Armfield painting featured on the cover of Fleetwood Mac’s 1969 album Then Play On (emphasis added). The presence of the attribute, identifying the painting with definiteness, dictates the definite article here. --Lambiam 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, that led me to this interview which says, after Fleetwood says Then Play On is one of his favourite albums, "He owns the original of the artwork used for the album. The painting, which features a naked man on a horse, is called Domesticated Mural Painting and is by the artist Maxwell Armfield. It was originally designed for a London mansion". Thanks all, DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the pieces concerned are written by art historians, and if the Classic Rock journalist thinks the work is called "Domesticated Mural Painting", he may have simply Googled it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mick: "That's the original painting we used on Then Play On". Journalist: *makes note to look it up on Wikipedia later* DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the piece is Fleetwood quoted as saying that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We still need the original client and location though! DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just ordered an exhibition catalogue which may be of use. There does not appear to be a catalogue raisonné for Armfield, nor can I find details of his heirs or executors. I have seen it mentioned that Mick Fleetwood knew him personally. DuncanHill (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Michael Madigan's father

I am 99% certain that his father's name is also Michael Madigan, however since 2014 the article states "Michael Flynn" as the name. Just asking for a sanity check as it seems the addition was made by a sock who did significant editing to the article which were mostly good edits. Just looking for a second set of eyes to confirm that Flynn isn't a nickname I am missing from a book or old article. Slywriter (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article also states that his father's name was Michael Madigan several times, and has copious references. You can feel confident changing the "Flynn" back to "Madigan". It is obviously not correct. --Jayron 32 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't change it. The bit about a Michael Flynn was added in 2014 as noted.[7] There was, in fact a Cook County Clerk named Michael Flynn. In the 1930s and 1940s. See Cook County Clerk. He was succeeded by Richard J. Daley. That's probably the reason the editor added that bit, as Madigan's father was friendly with Daley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back, with hopefully a little more clarity on Flynn's role. Obviously, a different Flynn from the famous or infamous General. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Makes more sense now. A tweet alleging some grand conspiracy with Madigan and his father as the General is what brought this to my attention. Low profile tweet so I don't expect a sudden surge of interest in the article but wanted to make sure the record was correct here. Slywriter (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I also added the Flynn's middle initial. And I was thinking that if the 1930s-1940s Cook County official was the same guy as the General, then he must have found the Fountain of Youth! Note also how many Irishmen were involved with Chicago's city government at the time. You didn't have to be Irish to be in government, but it didn't hurt! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the article... It is still a bit confusing ... are we saying that the elder Michael Madigan (the subject’s father) worked for/with/under Flynn at the Cook County Clerk’s office (which is where he met Daley)? Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be it. Maybe it's a little too much detail. The important bit would seem to be that Madigan's father was friendly with Daley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal DNA

I recently read an article that said "Neanderthals, who went extinct about 40,000 years ago, lived alongside and sometimes interbred with modern humans in Europe and Asia but not in Africa, and people of purely African descent do not carry Neanderthal DNA. Studies estimate that about 2% of DNA in people of European and Asian descent can be traced back to Neanderthals." As I understand it, Indigenous peoples are also disproportionally vulnerable to covid (in North and South America; I would assume also Indigenous peoples of Australia, etc. as well). My question is: would Indigenous North and South American peoples have the same plight as pure Black peoples with not having any Neanderthal DNA? Do (pure) Indigenous peoples have any Neanderthal DNA? 216.104.97.230 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vulnerability is socioeconomic and not genetic, AFAIK. Indigenous people among other non-European-descent groups have less access to quality healthcare and are more likely to work in high-risk jobs where they get greater contact with infected people, and are less likely to have access to high-quality profilaxis which could mediate infection risk, and all of that is purely due to the lower socioeconomic status of such peoples. There's no need to invoke a genetic difference, much less due to Neanderthals. " there's no evidence that people of color have genetic or other biological factors that make them more likely to be affected by COVID-19...they are more likely to have underlying health conditions...more likely to live in multi-generational homes, crowded conditions and densely populated areas (making) social distancing difficult....have jobs that are considered essential or can't be done remotely and involve interaction with the public...more likely to encounter barriers to getting care, such as a lack of health insurance or not being paid when missing work to get care." This is from a U.S. perspective, and applies to ethnic minorities more than just indigenous people, but applies to indigenous peoples in other countries as well, such as First Nations people in Canada, Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, Pacific Islanders, The Moari in New Zealand. It's not genetic, it's socioeconomic. --Jayron 32 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That it is not genetic is far from clear, and it is very likely it is in one respect. Lighter skinned people are less likely to lack vitamin D, making it easier for the body to make it is what lighter skin is for. Recent evidence has strongly supported the positive effect of D against covid. That Mayo clinic link has a link to COVID-19 and vitamin D which demonstrates the strange resistance to this idea. Some of it is OK, but there is strained bothsidesism. It "balances" the positive studies with negative ones about vitamin D on patients - who don't have covid! Huhh?! Basically irrelevant and just plain stupid.John Z (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also cultural, like deciding to attend a Coronavirus party. Some people are also successfully suing governments to allow them to spread covid in their religious buildings so they can better spread the virus into the community. Of 19 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't completely rule out genetics. When Old World people contacted New World people around 1500, the diseases transferred from the Old World (Europe, Asia, Africa) to the New World had a devastating effect on the indigenous people. Diseases transferred in the opposite direction had very little effect (syphilis may has jumped from the New World to the Old World, but was nowhere near as bad as what moved in the other direction). Back then, nobody had access to quality healthcare, so a genetic component seems plausible. In the Old World, there were more people, the population density was higher and the trade network was better developed, making it easier for diseases to move around. You would expect Old World people to have evolved better immune systems because of that.

African-Americans are genetically Old World people, so if they get more disease, it is for socio-economic reasons. Also note that it's politically incorrect to state there are real differences between different ethnicities. We're not supposed to say that ethnic minorities are genetically inferior, but in some aspects they are (in others they may be superior). PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect Old World people to have evolved better immune systems because of that. Could have been, but this is not how it worked. There are two immune systems, the innate and the adaptive ones. The adaptive immune system is by definition not genetically determined but does instead learn on the field which pathogens are frequent so as to be able to fight them more efficiently. That means that Europeans coming to America had no 'better' immune systems but immune systems sharpened against common European diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox, which on the contrary were completely unknown to the adaptive immune system of native Americans. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

I wasn't talking about the innate immune system.

It's still genetically determined how effectively the adaptive immune system can adapt to new pathogens. In a part of the world where new pathogens pop up all the time, it'd better be very effective or repeated attacks will decimate the population. In parts of the world where new pathogens are rare, human evolution can afford a less effective adaptive immune system, taking higher losses in the odd case when a new one pops up, but having lower cost at other times.

In my post above I noted the asymmetry in the Columbian exchange. I didn't say that New World people couldn't handle the diseases that the Old World people could handle (which is obviously the effect of the immune system knowing those diseases). I said that the New World people couldn't handle the Old World diseases, whilst the Old World people could handle the New World diseases. Yes, there were fewer of them, which means that New World people had less pathogens to tune their immune systems to. Just saying, a genetic component is plausible. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jayron32. I had thought of the socioeconomic aspects but was not able to conceptualize it the way you explained it. 216.104.97.230 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it has been recently discovered that many sub-Saharan African people do apparently have a small amount (0.3%) of Neanderthal DNA. It's posited that some Europeans with ancestral Neanderthal DNA migrated back into Africa some 20,000 years ago, carrying it with them.

As for indigenous North and South Americans, they have on average more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans. We used to think of Neanderthals as a European population because that's where they were first identified, but in fact they ranged far into Asia, as did their sister population the Denisovans, who seemingly were even more populous in East Asia, since modern populations there and in Australasia have up to 8% Denisovan DNA. "Modern humans", Neanderthals and Denisovans seem to have interbred readily (given the number of hybrids we have already discovered within the very sparse fossil record) and of course the ancestors of indigenous Americans migrated from (North) East Asia where such mixing had been going on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.74.203 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A certain piece of Neanderthal DNA possibly increases risk of severe COVID according to a paper published in September.[8] Another might also [9] but a third might lower risk [10] Just having some Neanderthal genes is not enough, they have to be the right ones. Rmhermen (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

Countries that had split governments–with two or more parties controlling sizable amounts of a country's territory and both claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire country–for a long time

Which cases were there of countries having split governments–with two or more parties controlling sizable amounts of a country's territory and both claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire country–for a long time? So far, I can think of:

France during the Hundred Years' War, especially in its later stages, when huge parts of it were controlled by both the English House of Plantagenet and the French Capetian cadet branch known as the House of Valois.
Korea from the end of World War II up to the present-day, being split into Communist North Korea and capitalist South Korea as a result of the partition of Korea.
China from 1949 up to the present-day, being split into Communist Mainland China and capitalist Taiwan.
Vietnam from 1954 to 1976, being split into Communist North Vietnam and capitalist South Vietnam as a result of the partition of Vietnam.
Germany from the end of World War II up to 1990, being split into capitalist West Germany and Communist East Germany as a result of the partition of Germany.
Yemen being split into capitalist North Yemen and Communist South Yemen from the late 1960s to 1990, I believe. Though if I recall correctly the partition of Yemen formally began in the early 19th century.
Libya being split into a western half and an eastern half over the last several years as a result of the Libyan Civil War (2014-present), with the leadership of both halves claiming all of Libya.
Possibly Syria as well, though I'm unsure if the Syrian rebels actually have a unified formal government.
Afghanistan being split into territories controlled by the internationally recognized Afghan government and territories controlled by the Taliban, aka the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, after the start of the Taliban insurgency there in the 2000s.

Anyway, though, which additional examples of this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with which countries should be removed from that list. First, you yourself asked if South Vietnam made territorial claims against North Vietnam and nobody said it did. Second, I do not believe either government in Germany ever claimed to be the legitimate government of the whole country; rather, they each hoped to be the surviving government if and when the country was reunified. I am therefore suspicious of the rest of your list too, except China, but I have no expertise to comment further. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to South Vietnam, I later found this interesting tidbit of information: Robert_McNamara#Into_Vietnam: "Fearful of causing a war with China, Johnson was opposed to the plans of Khánh to invade North Vietnam, and he was even less enthusiastic about having the United States invade North Vietnam.[71] To declare war on North Vietnam would lead to irresistible political pressure at home to invade North Vietnam.As such, the solution was floated for Congress to pass a resolution granting Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.[75]" Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for Korea, North Korea tried to conquer South Korea during the Korean War while South Korea subsequently tried to conquer North Korea with the United Nations's help later on in the same war–advancing all of the way up to the Yalu River, near the Chinese border, at one point in time, in fact! Futurist110 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Yemen was royalist, then Nasserite, not really "capitalist". The West German constitution (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) envisioned East German areas being brought into the West German system... AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<small?Notably BRD/West German also envisioned to some extent recovering East Prussia, the eastern border with Poland was only finally settled around the 1990 re-unification. --Soman (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA during its civil war; Ireland ditto; France during WWII? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Confederacy never claimed sovereignty over the states that had not joined it, and indeed, I think, only a limited sort of sovereignty over the ones that had. It's reasonable to think that their emphasis on state sovereignty was at least in part a pretext (the Fugitive Slave Act was not very states'-rightsy at all) but they do seem to have believed in it enough to have upheld it to their detriment in prosecuting the war. --Trovatore (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angola, Sudan, Palestine are a few modern examples --Soman (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The English Civil War, aka the War of the Three Kingdoms: The Cromwell-led Commonwealth of England and the Charles II government-in-exile. Charles worked closely with pro-Royalist groups in Scotland and Ireland especially (i.e. the Covenanters, see also the Treaty of Breda. Also, France during World War II had the collaborationist Philippe Pétain-led Vichy government; in opposition to this was the Free French government of Charles de Gaulle. This may not be entirely accurate if we only take Metropolitan France as "France", but if we expand our view to the wider French Empire, Free French forces controlled much of Africa. --Jayron 32 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India in WWII is a bit of a border-line case. There was the Viceroy of India's government (a colonial government) and the nominally independent Azad Hind Provisional Government, which through Japanese military intervention was given authority of limited parts of the country. I mention it as a border-line case as one could argue that it was a conflict between a colonial power and a rebel anti-colonialist government (of which there are many, many more examples), but the dynamics of WWII are a bit peculiar and both sides claimed to be the legitimate government of all of British-ruled India (...without going into the distinction of British India and princely states. Not 100% sure what position Azad Hind took to French and Portuguese possessions...) --Soman (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Most countries that have ever had a civil war and all that have had a war of independence. ----Serial 15:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the original question was "... and both claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire country-for a long time", that is not true for all countries that have had a war of independence. Usually, the region seeking independence neither wishes nor claims to govern the entire country. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"For a very long time" is far too subjective to be a useful parameter, while the original question literally refers to countries, not regions therein. {{cn}} needed for the second part of your comment. ----Serial 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if the rebelling side claims to be the legitimate ruler of the whole territory, it's not really a war of independence, is it? I suppose there might be cases where one side claims sovereignty over the whole territory but in actuality wants independence, or at least would settle for it. Taiwan might possibly be an example of that, though I'm out of my depth on that point. Are there any other examples? --Trovatore (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant. By "region" I meant the part that, after the war, became a separate country, without seeking or claiming to govern the area of both countries. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan has no means to press the claim, but I don't believe that the Republic of China has ever relinquished officially claiming to be the only legitimate government over all of China, though there has been over time a growing and powerful sentiment among successive generations that Taiwan should be establishing a separate identify from that of mainland China, (see Taiwanese identity), which is more of a recognition of the de facto status rather than the rather convoluted de jure status of Taiwan. --Jayron 32 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ROC (Taiwan) government tried to block the admission of Mongolia (independent "outer" Mongolia) to the United Nations during the 1950s with its Security Council veto, due to longstanding claims, until the ROC was pressured to stop the obstruction (I remembered it as being U.S. pressure, but our Mongolia-Taiwan relations article says Soviet pressure). Some branches of the ROC government issued maps of China including Mongolia until somewhat recently... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very modern example is the Venezuelan presidential crisis, where there are two different governments, including two presidents (Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó), two different legislatures (the Constituent National Assembly and the National Assembly) and two different Supreme Courts (the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Venezuela in exile). This state of affairs has existed since 2018, with both complete governments claiming to represent the whole of the country and neither one recognizing the legitimacy of the other. Indeed, I'm surprised no one has yet brought it up as it is probably the best representation of the OP's criteria. --Jayron 32 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful to look at the constitutions of the various candidates. In the Irish constitution the name of the country is stated to be "Ireland". After the Good Friday agreement Article 2 stated "every person born in the island of Ireland" has the right "to be part of the Irish Nation". 146.199.206.11 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't anywhere make territorial claims to the land of Northern Ireland, nor does the UK make any territorial claims to the Republic of Ireland's land. Granting citizenship right to people born outside of your claimed boundaries is common enough (see Jus sanguinis for a related concept). To grant the rights of the citizen to persons born in Northern Ireland does not mean that the Republic has any claims on the land, however. --Jayron 32 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1999 the Republic claimed the whole of the island of Ireland. See Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm not aware of any bilateral claims to the whole island of Ireland after the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921; Britain granted them full Dominion status on par with Canada and Australia, making them functionally independent and relinquishing claims to sovereignty over the Irish Free State, which after the transition to Republic status in 1937 in the Adoption of the Constitution of Ireland, the same document you note. Britain at the time made some perfunctory objections to the use of certain names, and also of the Republic's claims to Northern Ireland as you note; however at no time since 1921 has Britain claimed sovereignty over the whole Island, making the Irish claims between 1937-1999 as being irredentist in nature, and not a simultaneous claim to the same territory (the whole of the island) by two countries. --Jayron 32 19:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give me any more information on this image please?

This image shows a person reaching out to a monkey/ape, with the words Mazurier - role de Joko underneath. I think it's Charles-Francois Mazurier, who was an actor/mime/dancer, presumably playing in the role of Joko in something. I guess it was around the 1820s, but that's about all I can tell. I'd appreciate any further details about the artist, or indeed the role of Joko, thanks.95.150.174.25 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing an image at that link. --Viennese Waltz 13:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. ——Serial 13:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image description states "Mazurier as Jocko, the role he danced with enormous success during the 1826 season at the Théâtre de la Porte-Saint-Martin. Depicts Mazurier costumed as an ape, sitting on a rock at left; a young boy at right reaches toward him." Wikipedia does not appear to have an article about Charles-Francois Mazurier, but the name is mentioned at Jean Coralli, who worked with him apparently. French Wikipedia has a short article about him here. --Jayron 32 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the play DOES have an English Wikipedia article Jocko ou le Singe du Brésil (in English: Jocko, or The Monkey of Brazil), and the French version of the article confirms that Mazurier played the role, AND has a version of the drawing in the OP. --Jayron 32 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also fr:Charles-François Mazurier which I have attempted to translate with much assistance from Mr Bing:-

Charles-François Mazurier was a French mime [artist] and dancer born in Lyon in 1798 and died in Paris on February 4, 1828. A famous "dislocated" (?) dancer, Mazurier began his career as a comic and character dancer in 1819 in Bordeaux and then in his hometown (1820-1823). His repeated successes led him to Paris, where he made his debut in 1823 at the Porte-Saint-Martin theatre. The author of the New Theatre Biography calls him "the Caesar of the pirouette, the Alexander of the Cabriole, the privileged (?) of the split." One of his specialties is his "Polichinelle pace", danced on stilts, which Jean-Baptiste Blache created for him. Mazurier died in Paris in 1828 from a chest disease at the age of twenty-nine. He was buried in the Père-Lachaise cemetery; his grave has since been taken over.

Not sure if there's a better translation of danseur « disloqué » though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A marionette is sometimes called a "pantin disloqué" (lit. dislocated puppet), perhaps because of the way that the limbs are disjointed from each other. See here or here for the related term "pantin désarticulé". As you can see from the both links, people's dancing is often described by analogy to a pantin disloqué or a pantin désarticulé perhaps to indicate that it was "marionette like". It doesn't have a direct idiom in English, though perhaps "disjointed dancing" may be the best approximation, perhaps also something like a contortionist is what they are going for here. "Le Privilégié" as a noun literally means "The Privileged (one)" but in the sense written, it would be better translated as "the Master of". My French is a bit rusty, so I welcome corrections from a more natively inclined speaker. --Jayron 32 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little more research shows that pantin disloqué may be referring to a Jumping jack (toy) rather than a marionette, but it's still a kind of puppet, so I think my understanding holds. --Jayron 32 17:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Loose-jointed" is, I think, an English expression that is sometimes applied to dancing. (I seem to recall it's being used of Buddy Ebsen's style.) Deor (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Mazurier on the French Wikipedia also contains a quotation from the Grand Larousse du XIX^e siècle that mentions Jocko:

"Mazurier delighted all of Paris under the Restoration. A good dancer and charming mime, his pleasantness and his lazzi, his adroitness and his boldness, were incomparable in Polichinelle vampire, les Meuniers, le Gascon à trois visages, le Déserteur, Jean-Jean, la Neige, Gulliver, and especially Jocko, performed at Porte Saint-Martin. In Jocko, a little touching drama, Mazurier, sewn in a monkey's skin, made people laugh by his frolics and cry by his death. The English envied us at Jocko, whose popularity was universal; they engaged the French clown for six weeks in the theatre of Drury Lane at the price of 1,200 francs per night, 200 francs more than were paid Talma and Mademoiselle Mars."

--Lambiam 23:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump, Nixon, and Liability

I'm not a lawyer, by any means, but I've been curious about this given recent news. I've had a few friends (as well as seen a few mentions in opinion pieces) about sueing Trump for what happened on Jan 6th - usually regarding what happened to the cop that died in the event, or the damage caused. Most people seem to mention something about Trump not sending aid or inciting the event. Given Nixon v. Fitzgerald, would Trump be open to a civil suit since any choice on sending aid, or what not, would be acting as president not a private citizen? In the case of inciting, it sounds like if he was criminally liable, he might be civilly liable as a result, would that be true? This question isn't so much about Trump and Jan 6th as it is about what that case means and if a president can be sued - if Trump is too political, please feel free to use any hypothetical situation instead. As mentioned, I have no legal education and may be asking something really obvious or silly, apologies if so.2601:547:1:4EE0:50C9:5B67:8787:7511 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the are differences between civil and criminal law in terms of standards for evidence and the threshold for conviction/liability. In a criminal case, the standard is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a much higher standard than in a civil case. Famously from the past, O.J. Simpson was found to be not guilty in the death of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman, in the O. J. Simpson murder case, however he was found liable for Goldman's death in the civil suit subsequently filed by his family. While he could not be imprisoned for losing the civil trial, he did have to pay damages to the family. The idea behind the civil suits in the case of the January 6th riot is similar; the standards for a civil case against Trump for inciting the violence and thus being civilly liable for the damages from that riot are much lower than the standards to hold him criminally guilty. --Jayron 32 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the asserted causative acts—whether statements on the campaign trail, in and around litigation stemming from the election, and at a rally prior to the incident—were not the official acts of the President, the rule in Nixon v. Fitzgerald would probably not confer immunity. In general, it sounds like you're interested in presidential immunity, and I would suggest continuing research on that subject. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metre in the Divina Commedia

Dante's Divina Commedia is well known to have used terza rima as its rhyming scheme, but reading it (being not very proficient in Italian) I find it difficult to grasp the rhythm of the poetry. Can someone clarify the exact metre that is used? Or is it to some extent variable? rossb (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Hendecasyllable#In Italian poetry. Many lines can be read as approximately iambic, but that's perhaps fortuitous. (When you're reading the verse, don't forget about elision of a word-ending vowel before a word-beginning vowel.) Deor (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can also listen to the first Canto of the Inferno, for example recited by Vittorio Gassman (here) or by Roberto Benigni (here). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

50 cal gun and air

The other day, I was watching a Youtube vid of someone taking multiple shots with a 50 cal gun. The host showed how the air around the gun got cold enough to see one's breath. What is the science behind this? 70.26.18.103 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could link to the YouTube item? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask at the science RD. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weimar Wild-Boys

I was browsing 4chan's /pol/ and came across some fascist comparing what they saw as today's "femboy degeneracy" to a phenomenon of "Wild-Boys" in Weimar Republic. Supposedly, during the Weimar period, many male teens and young adults formed hyper sexual homosexual gangs and constantly had BDSM style sex with each other. From a reddit post, I was able to find the book "Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin" (full HTML text, very NSFW, search for "Wild-Boys" with the dash). But I couldn't find anything more about it on pages like German Youth Movement, Weimar culture or Wandervogel. It's seems to be a very interesting phenomenon, very surprising that it doesn't have a Wikipedia page and information seems hard to come by. I don't know enough about the topic to be able to research it properly or a create a Wikipedia page. Can someone here point to some books/articles where I could find more about this? Thanks and regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't (though there might be some in Gordon's bibliography). You could contact the Schwules Museum (it was more or less born out the successful 1984 exhibition „Eldorado – Homosexuelle Frauen und Männer in Berlin 1850–1950“ which Gordon quotes too). Here's their contact site in English. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to the topic, it strikes me that this movement must, surely, have been an inspiration for William S. Burroughs' 1971 novel The Wild Boys, set in the (then future) late 20th century and depicting a similar "homosexual youth movement": however, I can't find any critical discussion about this, and it's certainly not mentioned in the novel's article, although Borroughs did travel in Europe in the 1930s and participate in gay Weimar culture. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Lefaucheux make a 6mm revolver?

Ferdinand Cohen-Blind tried to assassinate Otto von Bismark with a 6mm Pepperbox Revolver. At least that is what is said in the article about Ferdinand. I tried to Google a bit, and couldn't find the model of this supposed 6mm revolver made by Lefaucheux. The closest thing I got was a 7mm Revolver. This photo is very similar to the Dorotheum 7mm pepperbox revolver made by Lefauchex. Maybe the sources are wrong, and the gun is a 7mm Pepperbox revolver? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]