Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.209.14.47 (talk) at 04:21, 18 March 2021 (→‎Longest imprisoned monarch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:

March 11

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

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

What about Operation Cyclone? <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 05:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not direct military action but close enough. So, Yeah, it definitely works for this! Futurist110 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify–Operation Cyclone, while not a direct U.S. military intervention, was definitely an EXTREMELY massive (non-military) U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan from falling under Communist rule. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
United States invasion of Grenada might qualify. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that specific invasion was more due to the U.S.'s fear of a repeat of the Iran hostage crisis rather than due to the U.S.'s fear of Communism, no? Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As might Bay of Pigs Invasion. Though both the Grenada and Cuba situations were aimed at removing an already-communist government. The Grenada thing worked, while the Cuba thing was a miserable failure. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 06:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bay of Pigs attempt, while unsuccessful, definitely works for this! Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up something, for a few years before the 1983 invasion, Grenada was ruled by a leftist government that irked the U.S. quite a bit, but was not considered a danger to U.S. interests. However, when Maurice Bishop was assassinated and replaced by an even more extremist bunch, there was fear that a Cuban-style move to the Soviet orbit was on the way, prompting the U.S. intervention. The fate of the American medical students at St. George's University was just a pretext; this was definitely a "prevent communism" type of action. Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly; I'll have to read up more on this. Was having such a small island end up in the Soviet sphere of influence really that threatening to US interests, though? The story with the safety of the medical students does make sense, when one thinks about it. As in, that this invasion was a preemptive move to eliminate the risk of another Iran hostage crisis occurring later on. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Árbenz did not fill any cabinet-level positions with members of the Guatemalan Party of Labour (PGT). While the PGT fraction in parliament supported his policies generally, it is not clear one can say they were included in the coalition. The 1954 coup d'état may have been inspired more by the lobbying of the United Fruit Company, with the spectre of communism serving as a facile guise.  --Lambiam 09:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Communist connection was mostly a pretext for those who directly organized the coup. However, the article which you linked to says that the party "gained prominence during the government of Col. Jacobo Arbenz". If Eisenhower would not have have authorized a covert action on behalf of United Fruit, but did authorize the covert action on the basis of getting rid of a communist-friendly Western Hemisphere government, then Arbenz's coalition with communists was very costly... AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the specific role of Communists in the Jacobo Arbenz government? Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: — I was questioning the appropriateness of the term "coalition" for the relation of the Árbenz administration with "communists". If Árbenz did not have a coalition with communists, Guatemala's ordeal was not induced by him miscalculating its cost.  --Lambiam 08:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the exact nature of the Communist role, it was more than enough to attract negative attention in the United States. I'm not saying that Árbenz remotely "deserved" anything that happened, but it's curious to me that he didn't take simple steps which might have mitigated the risk of U.S. intervention... AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interesting; will take a look at your links! Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, without US military aid – a form of intervention – the leftist National Liberation Front, dominated by the KKE, would have won the Greek Civil War. Some Greeks and Turks will choke up by the thought of stay-behind operations in Turkey and the personal as well as social losses they entailed.  --Lambiam 09:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I definitely know that the Greek Civil War was a close call! Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further indirect action was CIA activities in Nicaragua in support of the Contras, and United States intervention in Chile against President Salvador Allende. Alansplodge (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Against the Contras, certainly, but was Salvador Allende actually a Communist? Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says he was a "Marxist". Can you be a Marxist without being a communist? Maybe, depending on your definitions of the two terms, but it's a distinction I would not have expected to be convincing to cold-war US policymakers, even if they believed it, which they likely would not have. I think Castro claimed, before seizing power, that he did not intend to impose Soviet-style single-party communist rule, which of course was exactly what he did. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UNITA and even more so to FNLA. Farawayman (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And Congress was concerned enough that the U.S. would be dragged into another Vietnam-like quagmire that it prevented President Ford from supporting UNITA. [1]. Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, the U.S. Congress allowed President Ford to support UNITA with money and weapons but not with troops? I'm trying to reconcile your comment here with Jayron32's comment above here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article in question? The U.S. had supported UNITA and previously the FNLA with money and weapons (and probably a small number of covert "advisors") however, when Ford sought to expand this aid, he was denied by Congress. There was never any U.S.-based ground troops in Angola; in terms of "boots on the ground" the main foreign forces in Angola at the time were South African; it was the South African withdrawal in 1976 that precipitated Ford's request to Congress to amp-up American funding of UNITA; while Ford didn't ask for ground troop authorization at the time; there was genuine fear that he would soon, and Congress nipped that in the bud. Also note that the Angolan Civil War is a confusing mess of a war, in many ways similar to the Syrian Civil War in current times; it was not merely a war between two different sides, but there were multiple groups all vying for power, and the way foreign powers were involved didn't always mirror their international alliances; China and the U.S. for example both supported UNITA, even at a time when China was seen as a communist "enemy" of the U.S. --Jayron32 12:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read that article, but only an hour or so after I made that post. Anyway, thank you very much for this information! Very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States Antarctic Service Expedition

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

It seems so. See: [2] --Amble (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Fatimid Caliphate? --Amble (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the population of Egypt under the Fatimids were not Shi`i. Before the Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam, Shi`ites were usually a minority in most areas of the Islamic world, though Zaidiyyah prevailed in some smaller areas (such as North Yemen). AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Between Queen Victoria and the Parliament in the XIX century

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

That sounds like the Bedchamber Crisis. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As with many of this type of production, it's a mixture of historical facts with fiction. See Victoria (British TV series)#Historical accuracy. Rojomoke (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's called dramatization (which is a disambiguation page; I'm rather surprised that we don't have an article.)--Shantavira|feed me 09:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical experiences without drug use

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

Not answering the question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Define "mystical". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open for different kinds of mystical experiences. My specific interest is in having supernatural experiences. I want to see if such stuff is real. Consider me a truthseeker.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. That should narrow your search a tad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you believe in the supernatural or not. I'm curious in seeking it out for myself.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First seek out whether the world is flat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna sound rude, but I don't care about your personal opinions, Bugs. Wikipedia isn't your private website and I'm not here to debate you.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Science deck. The science does not deal with the supernatural. You are in the wrong forum. Your post must be removed.AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the humanities desk, isn't it? History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society? It seems to me that both history and philosophy are connected to mysticism, as well as some religions (although there are religions which don't have mystical traditions and some outright reject the mere idea).--85.4.148.47 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Have you watched the "trip" portion of 2001: A Space Odyssey? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to some authors, breathing techniques and meditation can help to reach a mystical state.[3][4][5]  --Lambiam 07:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, exercising to exhaustion (such as by dancing), fasting for extended periods, (deliberate) dehydration, listening to drum beats or other rhythmical music for extended periods, sensory deprivation (such as lying still in in an unlit cave), sleep deprivation, and of course various permutations of these may bring about states of mind that could be interpreted as 'mystical': I myself have experienced the effects of some of these. You might find something of interest in the article Shamanism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! I didn't know that biblical meditation was even a thing! It's true, we're never stopping to learn new things! Thank you for the highy useful links and information! A friend of mine did use a sensory deprivation tank, even though he described the experience as horrifying, he apparently saw strange stuff and had weird future visions.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does seeing ghosts or demons count as a mystical experience? Because that can happen without taking drugs, just due to the brain doing weird things while waking up or falling asleep: see Hypnagogia, Hypnopompic, and Sleep_paralysis. Iapetus (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep paralysis must be horrifying from what I've heard. Is it connected to lucid dreaming?--85.4.148.47 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Germany's weak geopolitical position and diplomatic isolation were largely caused by not existing until less than 50 years before World War I. Most of the great powers in Europe had built their economic and political capital through colonization, and Germany had centuries of lag time to catch up. To be fair, they did a fantastic job of catching up, especially after the Berlin Conference, and their colonial administration is frequently cited as among the most advanced among the great powers, but there's something to be said for experience, and Britain, France, and Russia (if you consider their Asian territory as "colonial") each had a huge lead in that regard, with years of lead time developing colonial infrastructure and building their economic and political power upon it. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that European political power was built on colonization, and the other great powers just had more of it for longer. --Jayron32 12:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was certainly a part of it, but another part of it was the permanent alienation of France by taking Alsace-Lorraine from France back in 1871 at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Once France got Alsace-Lorraine back in 1918, France's anger towards Germany in large part disappeared–but of course was replaced by fear due to French fears of German revanchism, as ultimately indeed ended up being the case under Adolf Hitler. Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that Wilhelm II was directly involved in which had very serious repercussions for Germany's diplomatic position, was going on a battleship-building binge in the last few years of the nineteenth century, and the twentieth century leading up to WW2 (see High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan, Fleet Acts etc). Since for Germany its navy and overseas colonies were mostly a symbolic show-the-flag international prestige type of thing, while Britain was dependent on shipments of food from overseas to eat (i.e. not self-sufficient in basic food production), this soured British-German relations, and pushed Britain to enter into the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, while the British became grimly determined to do whatever it took to match and exceed Germany in the naval arms race, regardless of cost, as a vital life-and-death matter. When WW1 came, the German surface navy didn't seriously challenge British sea power outside the North Sea, and didn't really give Germany any great military advantage in the North Sea. If Germany's fleet ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow without giving Germany any big victories, but caused the UK to side with France in WW1, then Germany arguably ended up paying a very high price for entering into a fleet-building program based on vague jingoistic sentiments and/or Kaiser Wilhelm II's semi-childlike glee at shiny new military hardware and gold braid on his shoulders. A wiser monarch might have considered such factors before starting the arms race... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent call. This analysis, and more, can be found at the Wikipedia article titled Anglo-German naval arms race. --Jayron32 14:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
July Crisis has more on German thinking immediately prior to the war. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how he helped. Wilhelm II was widely viewed as unstable by the people serving him. There's a quote in G. J. Meyer's A World Undone from a top German minister to the effect of "the Kaiser is like a kite; if not tethered, he goes hither and yon, to where no one knows." He almost singlehandedly started a European war years prior to the outbreak of WWI in the First Moroccan Crisis, by basically going to Morocco, then under French influence, parading around, and daring France to do something about it. His diplomats had to scramble around to tamp things down before they spiraled out of control. Also the Daily Telegraph affair, where his rants about everyone being against him got published in England; afterwards, the government took steps to isolate him from influencing policy. This is a recent article with some more stuff. It's worth remembering that Wilhelm was never supposed to take the throne when he did. His father died just months into his reign from cancer as a result of smoking. Wilhelm also was maimed by a breech birth, which his family viewed as horrific for a prospective future Emperor, and he basically spent his whole life trying to "prove himself". Now with that said, as previously noted, Germany's naval binge, which Britain understandably saw as an existential threat, was broadly popular. It wasn't something Wilhelm singlemindely pursued. Many in the German public saw the military buildup as necessary to grasp their "place in the sun" and be seen as an equal to the other European empires, and never quite understood why it inspired fear in the other powers and drove them into each others' arms as allies against them. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm wasn't solely personal responsible for Germany's battleship-building binge, but he helped it become a reality with his enthusiastic support (which seemed to be based on something other than sober strategic geopolitical thinking which took into account all important relevant factors). AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Bulldog

Tom Huxley is often nicknamed Darwin's Bulldog. Our article says "Huxley said "I am Darwin's bulldog"" but this claim is unsourced. I am looking for citations for a) Huxley's use of the term, if he ever did, and b) other early uses of it about him. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? --Jayron32 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Thanks, looks pretty conclusive. The article is a mess frankly, loads of ref errors. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, he is today widely known as Darwin's bulldog, so we wouldn't want to leave it out entirely, but something to the effect of "Widely known after his death as "Darwin's bulldog" (a sobriquet unknown in his lifetime)..." or something like that, referenced to that article. --Jayron32 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this goes too far the other way! Assuming that this writer has the facts right, it should say something like "According to Henry Fairfield Osborn, Huxley once told him, 'I have always been Darwin's bull-dog', and that soubriquet for Huxley became widely used after his death." --142.112.149.107 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II's English Residence

Hello! I've been doing some research on Henry II of England but I can't seem to figure out where his primary residence was when he was in England. I saw that he "invested heavily in" Clarendon Palace and that he "converted it into a royal residence and palace," but the neither his biography nor the Clarendon Palace article specifiy that it was his primary residence where he spent most of his time when living in England. Would anyone be able to confirm that Clarendon was in fact his primary residence, or was there another palace where he lived? Thank you, Jith12 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jith12, does it make sense to talk about the "primary residence" of an English monarch at that time? My impression is that the court was very much peripatetic. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Henry II also built extensively at Windsor Castle, according to our article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with ColinFine that it is unlikely Henry had a single residence in England; indeed I'm pretty sure he spent as more of his reign outside of England as in it; he had a large empire to manage, the Angevin Empire, and he actually controlled more of France than he did of England (or indeed than the nominal King of France did!). AFAICT, his primary residence, if there was one, was Château de Chinon in Touraine, France insofar as it seems to be his preferred place to go; he would retire there to die as well. Clarendon seems to have been a favorite residence, which was the site of the writing of the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Assize of Clarendon, so there was significant governing work done there and is as good as any place that is likely to be Henry's seat in England, but it certainly wasn't his only residence. Besides Windsor noted above, we also have evidence that Henry heavily renovated Old Sarum Castle as well, and also spent some time at Wallingford Castle and Winchester Castle. --Jayron32 17:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"His masterpiece was unquestionably Dover which he transformed into one of the mightiest fortresses in Europe. At the centre of this was his own residence, the Great Tower, a magnificent and spacious royal residence on two floors... At the same time that military architecture flowered Henry had an eye to luxury and comfort in his domestic residences. During his reign a lesser chamber was added to the complex at Westminster Palace providing for greater comfort, and Clarendon and Woodstock were both embellished and extended. At Woodstock, in the 1170s, he commissioned a luxurious retreat at a distance from the main house for his mistress, Rosamund Clifford. Everswell, as it became known, was planned round a spring and three interconnecting pools. Clarendon and Woodstock were his favourite houses both sited in the middle of great hunting grounds". Simon Thurley at www.royalpalaces.com. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! --Jayron32 18:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very useful information! Thank you for your help Alansplodge, ColinFine, Jayron32 and DuncanHill! All the best, Jith12 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He also demolished at least twenty castles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jith12 I'm pretty sure that the answer is Palace_of_Westminster#Old_Palace. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also ([8]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Neither of those links say anything about Henry II living at the old Palace of Westminster. --Viennese Waltz 13:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not specific enough. Is this any better? Granted, it's more specific about Henry III. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Dweller! Both the Palace of Westminster article and the websites that you linked highlight that Westminster was the "primary residence" and "main royal residence," which was exactly the type of confirmation that I was looking for! That was very helpful, I greatly appreciate it! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Pacific Commerce raiders

I am researching German commerce raiders in WW2 for example the Penguin,Atlantis and Kormorant. Is there any good sources for these ships and their voyages in the pacific ocean? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II: Volume I has a lengthy Google Books preview.
As does Hitler's Secret Pirate Fleet: The Deadliest Ships of World War II.
Also an article in Naval War College Review (p. 78 onwards).
Route of the German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran – nautical chart.
Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GERMAN SURFACE NAVY AT WAR - Capital Ships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Torpedo Boats & Commerce Raiders - 1939-45 (if you us e the site's search function, there are several other references scattered around).
German Commerce Raider vs British Cruiser: The Atlantic & The Pacific 1941 (brief preview but useful WWI background).
False Flags: Disguised German raiders of World War II.
Kriegsmarine Auxiliary Cruisers
Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Carl Craig - conflicting birth information

For the above article, I'm finding conflicting information about his date/year of birth. For example, this article in Clarion-Ledger (a reliable news source) lists Craig's DOB as July 7, 1878. However, this 1957 death notice, also in Clarion-Ledger, puts his age at 82 years old, which would imply that he was born in 1874 or 1875. Clearly one of them is incorrect, and I'm inclined to think it's the first one (as multiple news sources reported that he was 82 when he died). Has anyone run into a similar situation when writing a biography? Should I just discard the first source, and/or add some kind of {{circa}} for the year of birth with an explanatory note? DanCherek (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Findagrave might have an answer, but it doesn't.[9]
Looking at census records on Ancestry.com (pay site) I find:
1940, age 63 (wife Lucy, age 61)
1930, can't find
1920, age 43 (wife Lucy, age 42; daughter Beulah, age 20, plus other kids)
1910, age 33 (wife Lucy, age 32; daughter Beulah, age 10, plus other kids)
1900, age 23, born July 1876 (wife Lucie, age 22, born July 1887 [sic]; daughter Bulah [sic], age 10/12, born July 1899)
1890, census does not exist
1880, age 4, assuming it's the right one - census date June 11, 1880 - age "at last birthday prior to June 1, 1880", which would suggest an 1875 birthdate, but they might have fudged it.
In any case, the 1878 date does not square with any of the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the last census record is correct, the birth year is either 1875 or 1876. The others imply 1876 or 1877. Taken together, this leaves 1876 as the only possibility. The last one then implies the range from June 12, 1876, to December 31, 1876. The 1900 record narrows this down to July 1, 1876, to July 31, 1876. That would make him aged 81 at death. Since the birthday July 7 is likely to be correct, the census records suggest July 7, 1876.  --Lambiam 07:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed information, especially since I didn't have access to the Ancestry.com records. Not sure if this is the best place to ask my next question — any advice for how to deal with this article-wise, in terms of accurately mentioning when he was born while avoiding the specter of WP:OR? DanCherek (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The birthday and the birth year are coming from separate sources. So I would cite them separately. The birth year comes from multiple sources so it needs two or more cites - the logic is it must be Y because we know both (X or Y) AND (Y or Z) are true. So it should look like July 7 (cite), 1876 (cite)(cite). That way everything is directly cited and supported. As for OR - first this sort of arithmetic / logical stuff is not really considered OR. Second, more generally, OR has to do with what is in the article, not what is kept out of it. If an otherwise reliable source said he was born on Mars in 1492 BC, it is permissible "original research" to completely reject that (and perhaps even other things from that source) without comment.John Z (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The birth year 1876 needs only the 1900 census record as a source. Perhaps Bugs can supply a precise reference to the pay site. Or you can search for free using FamilySearch.org, but you need to create an account first.  --Lambiam 08:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb in regards to this is that the earlier a particular record/document (including a US Census entry) is to someone's birth, the more likely that the information on it in regards to one's age is actually going to be correct. Do we have an 1880 US Census entry for him? Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it earlier. And it's worth pointing out that census data is not gospel. I know of many cases in my own tree where the census taker had it wrong. That's why I listed all of them, to show consistency. As to a link to the pay site, I'm not sure what someone would want. You either belong to the site or you don't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgencies question

Why was the U.S. more capable of defeating the al-Qaeda insurgency and ISIS insurgency in Iraq than it was at defeating either the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan or the Vietnamese Communist insurgency in South Vietnam (which, to be fair, got a lot of help from regular PAVN North Vietnamese troops, especially after the Viet Cong severely exhausted itself with its 1968 Tet Offensive)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any specific sources, but part of the answer might be terrain; in Vietnam it was possible to concentrate and manoeuvre under the jungle canopy and in Afghanistan there are vast areas of narrow mountain gorges with natural cave complexes. In Syria and Iraq, the open terrain meant that ISIS were holed-up in the towns that they had captured, which were easy targets for the precision airstrikes of the various countries. The Vietnamese were also being supplied directly by both China and the USSR, whereas ISIS had no national friends. Note that the "boots on the ground" against ISIS were provided by the Iraqis and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a real-life version of How Not to Be Seen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Rainbow Herbicides. You don't need those in a desert. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology, terrain, and the support of the local population would pretty much sum it up. The first sets Vietnam off to one side (poor ability to find / destroy real targets from afar); the second helped shelter the Taliban better than ISIS, and the third was only thinly available to ISIS. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just how bad was the terrain in Vietnam? Futurist110 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean how much land was covered by jungles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By jungles and/or mountains, Yeah. Futurist110 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does Geography of Vietnam answer the question? Bear in mind also that a significant amount of the military operations of both sides were conducted (to an extent unofficially and secretly) in the territories of the neighboring countries Cambodia and Laos. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.80.5 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"By some estimates, forest cover in Vietnam declined by 50 percent between 1945 and 1980". [10]
"Forest cover [in Vietnam] declined sharply during the latter half of the 20th century, from 43 percent in the early 1940s, to about 17 percent by the end of the 1970s" [11]
Aside from the (largely accurate) comments on terrain above, bear in mind that jungle-fighting techniques — strategy, tactics, logistics — were learned on the ground. Close combat support helicopters, for example; rapid medi-evac; forward fire positions resupplied by air; uniform design; and on, and on. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial purchases Wikipedia article: Should the French purchase of Corsica from Genoa be included?

In this specific Wikipedia article, should the 1768 purchase of Corsica by France from Genoa be included here? What do you personally think? Futurist110 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the List of territory purchased by a sovereign nation from another sovereign nation, the important word is "purchased"; so, no. See: Treaty of Versailles (1768) & French conquest of Corsica. One might argue that it was acquired as payment for a debt, but this argument would best be discussed on the article's talk page, I assume. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:81CE:279D:B82D:75D8 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I think there's a difference between "territory ceded to pay reparations or debts" from "territory granted in a freestanding transaction", the contents of the list don't seem to make that distinction. Note that the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States is listed, resulting from the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-American war. Several other entries seem to represent similar situations. The real question for me is whether that distinction matters, and whether WP:NLIST really supports the creation of this list. But as you say, the article talk page is probably where the discussion belongs. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have now asked this question on this article's talk page. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

airwave breach 1/4/2021

I'm probably not the only one to have thought about this, but does anyone remember that there was a thread delivered by ATC frequency breach on 4 January 2021: "We are flying a plane into the Capitol on Wednesday. Soleimani will be avenged." (6 January 2021 was a Wednesday.) Since it anticipates the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, I thought that it might deserve mention there as a foreshadower, but I'm not sure. Does there appear to be a meaningful connection between the two events other than the coincidence?

Some points against this theory to show that I thought this out:

  • The threat is pretty hard to interpret as threatening anything other than an intentional plane crash, 9/11-style.
  • It looks like Trump supporters acted of their own accord/inspired by a Trump rally on the same day. I think might have been hard for Iranian intelligence, or people with Iranian government sympathies, to convince the Trump supporters to invade the Capitol. (The reason I mention the Iranians is because Qasem Soleimani was beloved among Iranians while he was alive and after he died.)
  • According to the intelligence community, Iran is against Trump, but Trump supporters are very obviously for Trump. So if this was conducted by Iranian intelligence etc., this would have been counterproductive for the result that they would have wanted to achieve.

Duckmather (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A threat, not a "thread".  --Lambiam 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An act by Iranians to avenge the assassination of Qasem Soleimani should have had 3 January as the obvious date and a military target (or possibly a high official in the executive branch). Together with the use of a synthetic voice to make the message anonymous, this makes an Iranian origin extremely implausible. Clearly, the aim was to disrupt the proceedings of the 2021 United States Electoral College vote count to be held on 6 January, and the claimed avenge motive was a guise. This aim coincided with that of Trump telling his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight as hell, but I see nothing concrete pointing at collusion. If taken seriously, it should in fact have kept the mob from storming the Capitol.  --Lambiam 08:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the analysis, Lambiam! Since this theory is extremely implausible, I don't think I'll take this very seriously as a possible theory from now on. (I think I was also considering a mention of this in the article, even with a disclaimer that the two are probably unconnected, but since it seems like this hasn't been discussed in relation to the Capitol storming much - here, here, and maybe here? - and because editing in your analysis would violate WP:NOR, I decided that it's not worth it.) Duckmather (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linking the threat to the storming or to Iran, or the storming to Iran seems a stretch. But this is pure OR/speculation but it's also not clear that the storming was counter productive to Iran if that's what you're suggesting. Iran may have preferred Biden to Trump, but it's not realistic to think anyone in Iranian intelligence who has a decent understanding of the US would expect there was any chance the storming would lead to Trump remaining president. Actually if anything they would have expected it to likely damage the chance of another Trump presidency and also reduce his influence. (Although frankly, I'm not convinced Iranian intelligence would think of Trump as some boggieman who must be destroyed at all cost once he lost. I suspect they're more worried about Mike Pompeo and others.) Further, it seems likely there would be plenty in Iranian intelligence, just like it's generally claimed to be the case for Russian and Chinese intelligence, who would be happy with anything which destabilises the US and leads to further polarisation. (In other words, it's quite likely plenty of countries somewhat hostile to the US would have been happy with the outcome especially if they also didn't like Trump. Doesn't mean any were involved thought.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the raindrops come along

A barbershop music tag I learned long ago has the lyric "let it pitter patter 'cause it really doesn't matter when the raindrops come along".

Now, a tag is generally the last few measures of an actual barbershop song. But so far I've been completely defeated in trying to figure out which song this tag is the last few measures of. My searches find hits for the tag, and for unrelated stuff.

Anyone have any insight as to the original song? --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Singin' in the Rain (written 23 years before the Musical it inspired) were rendered in barbershop style, that passage would make a plausible coda. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.80.5 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, tags usually evoke both the melody and the lyrics of the song more than that. Thanks for the suggestion though! --Trovatore (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could fit the classic "Come Rain or Come Shine" which (in the rarely sung intro) begins with "Let it storm let it thunder let the whole world go under". Some versions of your tag I found in online collections go slightly different: "Don't be blue when raindrops come a long (listen to the patter 'cause it really doesn't matter when the raindrops come along". I'm not very familiar with barbershop music. Are tags always composed for one specific song? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, yes. I wonder if in this case there's no song, just the tag, or rather the tag is the song? --Trovatore (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not an exact match, but the Irving Berlin song "Isn't This a Lovely Day?" (well known to Astaire-Rogers fans) ends with the lines "Let the rain pitter-patter / But it really doesn't matter / If the skies are gray; / Long as I can be with you, it's a lovely day." Deor (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite a coincidence! I'm sure Trovatore is aware of this (and it's even mentioned in our article Tag (barbershop music)), "In addition, good tags can be sung as short, stand-alone works." So they could be composed as such too. I'm sure I've seen this type of stand-alone tag in comedies and advertisement, and the first video examples of Trovatore's tag I found online were short clips, only the tag, including contestants for a virtual tag contest last year. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

Sihanouk question

Why did Sihanouk not make himself King of Cambodia again after the death of his father Suramarit in 1960? Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In his abdication speech, Sihanouk explained that he was abdicating in order to extricate himself from the "intrigues" of palace life and allow easier access to common folk as an "ordinary citizen". According to Osborne, Sihanouk's abdication earned him the freedom to pursue politics while continuing to enjoy the deference that he had received from his subjects when he was king. Presumably, his attitude towards the conflicts of interest that led him to abdicate in 1955 still existed in his mind in 1960. --Jayron32 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love and romance in Pakistan

Greetings,

South Asia in general and Pakistan in particular, mighty takes away every thing but commoners (read women) suffer for their free choice. In latest instance, just days after Women of Pakistan marched for their emancipation demands on International Women's Day; a university in Lahore chose to expel a student couple from University because the female student dared to publicly propose her boyfriend on campus while their circle of friends cheering for them.

Same time Pakistan celebrity and leadership has sizable number of successful love marriages, and I am looking for help in listing the same for new article Draft:Love in Pakistan.

Pl. do help expand the article. Thanks and warm regards. Bookku (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles with comparable titles (Love in Canada, Love in Germany, Love in Jamaica, Love in Morocco, Love in Nepal, Love in Singapore) seem to be about movies, so your title may not be the most suitable... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would draft talk would be appropriate location than Reference desk to discuss article title? Since anyway you have taken issue may be we can name it as a longer explanatory title some thing like 'Draft:Love in Pakistan (Non entertainment encyclopedic article for which encyclopedias are meant for since Wikipedia is now entertainment pedia and no scope for non entertainment subject of love!)' (It would be interesting coincidence like a couple is thrown out of university for expressing non fictional real love but one can study fictional love in University of Lahore, similarly let the topic of real love be barred from Wikipedia and only fictional love allowed! an interesting proposition !! Bookku (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth registration for non-Westerners, non-Japanese, and non-Christians 100+ years ago?

What was the situation in regards to birth registration for non-Christians who lived outside of either Europe, European offshoot countries (such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the various Latin American countries), or Japan 100+ years ago? Futurist110 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Birth registration question

Which non-white-majority countries other than both Japan and the various Latin American countries had widespread birth registration relatively early on–at least in comparison to most of the developing world? Futurist110 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-white" is probably not the right term to use. Xuxl (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? After all, people here know what the term "white people" means, don't they? Futurist110 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - the interpretation of who is "white" and who is not (as well as how much it matters) varies markedly from country to to country and culture to culture (those two not being congruent). For example, I recently learned that some people in the USA apparently do not consider Spanish people in Spain (not people in the Americas of Spanish descent) to be "white", something that as a European makes my jaw drop. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.80.5 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Spaniards are considered white Hispanics here in the U.S. Futurist110 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps on official documents and by a majority, but I instanced this because I recently encountered a white US person describing European Spanish people (in Spain, not in the USA) as "not white". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.80.5 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"White" is a property of the people, not the country; if you mean "countries in which white people are not the majority", or something else, please clarify. Xnft (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about writing "non-white-majority countries" here instead? Futurist110 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what time-frame you have in mind for "early on", but some Western countries were actually not all that advanced with respect to birth registration. Before 1837, England had no central/national registry, and birth information was mostly recorded in the baptismal record books of local churches all across the country. In the United States, it was and still is a matter for each separate state to determine... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1837 for a national birth registry is still very early, though. And baptismal records, if done during one's infancy, could be viewed as a type of proxy birth registration, I suppose. And various European countries, including England, had widespread baptismal records for a long time. Futurist110 (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the list of registers available at the The National Archives (United Kingdom) here. Nanonic (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Countries

Were there any countries in history specifically the 1700's that were technologically and culturally behind other countries? For example a country still using plate armor and the feudal system during the Napoleonic era? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk o contribs) 16:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan had more or less forbidden firearms at that point. They used their own type of armor (not consisting of solid sheets of metal). Any country in Europe of significant size which fell far behind other countries was likely to be conquered... AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 16th and early 17th centuries - the Sengoku period - the Japanese did develop plate armour which was effectively bullet-proof, but returned to earlier styles during the long peace of the Edo period. See Japanese armour. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandalf the Groovy: culturally ahead and behind are relative terms, so basically it depends on what is your definition of culturally ahead ? and behind ? Scale of renaissance is some thing better for comparison but on many other counts definition of culturally ahead ? and behind ? very much likely open to many a questions. Bookku (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another country that resisted Westernisation until fairly late, but remained free from colonisation was Thailand. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
France conquered Alsace (except for some towns) from the Habsburg junior line (Further Austria) in 1639. Habsburgs sold Sundgau to France in 1646 and Alsace (except for some towns) became part of France by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 on condition that feudal rights and customs were preserved. Feudal rights were extinguished in 1789 during the French Revolution (on the cusp of the Napoleonic era).
Sleigh (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serfdom in Russia was not abolished until 1861 (not sure if this is more "outdated" than slavery in the USA or British West Indies though). Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of hygiene, Western Europe was far, far behind much of North-east Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"For example a country still using plate armor and the feudal system during the Napoleonic era?" That would include large areas of Europe according to our article on feudalism:
  • "Vestiges of the feudal system hung on in France until the French Revolution of the 1790s, and the system lingered on in parts of Central and Eastern Europe as late as the 1850s. Slavery in Romania was abolished in 1856. Russia finally abolished serfdom in 1861.[1][2]"
  • The Patroon system of landholders with manorial rights was preserved in New York at least until the death of landowner Stephen Van Rensselaer in 1839. Due to the Anti-Rent War (1839-1845) and the demands of their tenants for land reform, his heirs were forced to break up the manorial estate. "The New York Constitution of 1846 added provisions for tenants' rights, abolishing feudal tenures and outlawing leases lasting longer than twelve years." This is considered the end of feudalism in the United States.
  • The Seigneurial system of New France, a semi-feudal system of land tenure, was preserved in Canada until 1854. "The manorial system was formally abolished through the passage of the Feudal Abolition Act 1854 by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, which received royal assent on 18 December 1854.[3]" Manorial lords continued to receive payment in compensation until 1970.
  • The Tokugawa shogunate in Japan maintained the feudal "bakuhan system" until its collapse in 1868. The abolition of the title of daimyō in 1869, and the Abolition of the han system by 1871 largely abolished traditional hereditary fiefdoms in favor of a centralized state. The Meiji oligarchy wanted a complete reformation of Japanese society, and largely removed many elements associated with the previous regime.
  • Feudal privileges of the Nakharar class of the Armenian nobility survived to the 20th century, but were largely abolished by the Bolsheviks in the 1910s and 1920s.
  • The system of Zamindars (hereditary feudal rulers) was preserved in South Asia until the land reforms of the 1950s. "The system was abolished during land reforms in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) in 1950,[4] India in 1951[5] and West Pakistan in 1959.[6] Vestiges of Feudalism in Pakistan survive to the 21st century, since "five per cent of agricultural households in Pakistan own nearly two thirds of Pakistan's farmland". These are large landowners, while their land is cultivated by "peasants or tenants who live at subsistence level".[7][8]" The data dates to 2015, but I doubt anything has changed in the last 6 years.
  • According to the Serfdom in Tibet controversy, the semi-independent Tibet (1912–1951) was a feudal society until its annexation to China in 1951. The status of Tibetan peasants as serfs or slaves is still disputed by various authorities. "Israel Epstein wrote that prior to the Communist takeover, poverty in Tibet was so severe that in some of the worst cases peasants had to hand over children to the manor as household slaves or nangzan, because they were too poor to raise them.[9] On the other hand, Laird asserted that in the 1940s Tibetan peasants were well off and immune to famine, whereas starvation was common in China.[10] According to other sources, the so-called "slaves" were domestic servants (nangtsen) and managers of estates in reality.[11]" A source from 1992 claims that the slaves in Tibet were not harshly treated, but that there was still a flow or runaway slaves which headed towards "Sikkim and British India."
  • The system of land tenure in Scotland remained feudal in nature until the end of the 20th century. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 abolished feudal land tenure, and turned the vassals of an estate to new land owners. The new legislation was enacted in May 2000, and took effect in November 2004. This is considered the end of feudalism in Scotland.
  • Sark was considered the last feudal state in Europe. In 2008, its feudal system was replaced with a "fully-elected democratic government".
  • In England, all feudal systems have been abolished with the exception of the one in the village of Laxton, Nottinghamshire, which has "the last remaining working open field system in the United Kingdom." In the 21st century, management of farmland in Laxton is handled by a "feudal court" which has annual meetings. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon (1996) pp 12–13
  2. ^ Jerzy Topolski, Continuity and discontinuity in the development of the feudal system in Eastern Europe (Xth to XVIIth centuries)" Journal of European Economic History (1981) 10#2 pp: 373–400.
  3. ^ An Act for the abolition of feudal rights and duties in Lower Canada, S.Prov.C. 1854, c. 3
  4. ^ Baxter, C (1997). Bangladesh, from a Nation to a State. Westview Press. p. 72. ISBN 0-8133-3632-5.
  5. ^ "Abolition of Zamindari in India - General Knowledge Today". www.gktoday.in. Archived from the original on 30 November 2016.
  6. ^ "Land reforms in Pakistan". Dawn. 11 October 2010. Archived from the original on 30 November 2016.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Shuja-2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ "Feudalism in Pakistan". TIMES OF KARACHI. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
  9. ^ Epstein 1983, pg. 46
  10. ^ Laird 2006, pp. 318–9
  11. ^ Kuzmin, S.L. Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation. Dharamsala, LTWA, 2011, p. 135

Vitezslav's poem Edison (poem)

Is the English translation (by Osers) of this available online, or failing that, in which printed works can I see it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.85.68 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most I could find online is a 40-line excerpt.  --Lambiam 22:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His Masters Voice

Our article about Nipper says "The original oil painting hung in the EMI boardroom in Hayes, Middlesex, for many years", but does not indicate where it is now. Can anyone run it to ground? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original is in the EMI boardroom in 30 Gloucester Place, London. The others are as listed here. Nanonic (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But EMI doesn't exist anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the EMI Archive Trust? Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In the UK, however, His Master’s Voice would ultimately become EMI, which continued to exhibit the original painting at its headquarters until it’s closure in 2012. The painting is sadly no longer displayed in the public domain; and in my research I was unable to find the location of the original painting". [12] Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there is an error, or at least a contradiction, in Wikipedia’s “Connecticut Colony” article.

The Wikipedia article “Connecticut Colony” has as its first sentence under “Leaders” the following: “Governor John Haynes of the Massachusetts Bay Colony led 100 people to Hartford in 1636.” In that sentence, “John Haynes” is a link to a Wikipedia article “John Haynes (governor)”. The second and third paragraphs under “Connecticut Colony” in that article, read in part: “Haynes, while making arrangements to follow Hooker, continued to be involved in Massachusetts through 1636…Haynes joined Hooker at the settlement they called Hartford in 1637.”

It seems to me that the article on Governor John Haynes acknowledges that he not only did not “lead” that crowd of 100 in 1636 to what was to become Hartford, but that he wasn’t even in the crowd, only joining them in Hartford in 1637.

I discovered this when reading about Rev. Thomas Hooker, who (with Rev. Samuel Stone) assuredly did lead that group, as the Wikipedia article “Thomas Hooker” says clearly in its eighth paragraph, reading in part, “ Owing to his conflict with Cotton and discontented with the suppression of Puritan suffrage and at odds with the colony leadership,[7] Hooker and the Rev. Samuel Stone led a group of about 100[13] who, in 1636, founded the settlement of Hartford, named for Stone's place of birth, Hertford in England.[14]” 72.224.65.32 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This biography agrees with you. The whole of the Connecticut_Colony#Leaders section lacks any sort of referencing, so you can change it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gombe Chimpanzee War

I'm still in shock from learning about the Gombe Chimpanzee War... Does anyone know if there are any other recorded cases of "organized conflicts" or "wars" like this for other animals? Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World War I, fought between tribes of Homo sapiens, has been recorded extensively.  --Lambiam 09:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone was going to make that joke... good job Lambiam... :) Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

Do any other religions have anything comparable to a baptism (and excluding marriage) in the first 20 years of one's life?

Do any religions other than Christianity have anything comparable to a baptism (and excluding marriage) in the first 20 years of one's life? I know that Jews have bar mitzvahs--and, in recent decades, bat mitzvahs as well--and also brit milahs for boys and also that Muslim boys also have their own circumcisions, but is there anything else in any non-Christian religion from within the first 20 years of one's life that's actually comparable to a baptism? I'm just wondering if this makes Christian centenarians and supercentenarians historically much easier to verify in comparison to centenarians and supercentenarians of various other religious groups.

Also, which Christian denominations do NOT have early-life baptisms? Because I know that Southern Baptists only baptized their members in early adulthood. Futurist110 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, to my knowledge, some or even many Christian denominations also have their members undergo church confirmation in their early teenage years. For instance, Christian Mortensen was confirmed into his church at age 13 or 14 in 1896. Futurist110 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This question is of importance when researching and verifying the ages of centenarians (people aged 100+) and supercentenarians (people aged 110+). Even when birth registration didn't exist yet, baptismal records sometimes helped fill in the gap in regards to this for Christians–along with census records and other documentation, of course. But verifying non-Christian centenarians and supercentenarians without birth registration (such as Japan's koseki system) has been astronomically harder. Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infant baptism has some information about which denominations practise it, though the article is rather heavily tagged for lack or inadequacy of sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion to Judaism involves, in part, complete immersion in a ritual bath called a Mikveh. There are a lot of similarities to baptism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longest imprisoned monarch

David II of Scotland was imprisoned for 11 years while remaining a reigning monarch. Are there any other imprisoned monarchs that were taken captive by enemies for longer? Also who was the last modern monarch to be held as a political prisoner while still technically remaining ruler. Not counting imprisonments after deposition. 69.209.14.47 (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Queen of Scots was imprisoned for 19 years, until her beheading in 1587. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to distinguish between imprisonment and exile. Mary's ill-fated journey to England which led to her incarceration was after her replacement by her son James VI (later James I of England). 146.199.206.3 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She was also deposed before her imprisonment so not a reigning monarch at the time.69.209.14.47 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Streightiff

Who was Walt Streightiff to whom the following quote is attributed: "There are no seven wonders in the world in the eyes of children; There are seven million." Is he the author of this quote? If so, where did he say or write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.28.110 (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 23#Walt Streightiff - who is he?. Garrison Keillor writes about him here. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US military in China (late-1930s/early-1940s)

US military in China (late-1930s/early-1940s) According to the 2010 film The Way Back set in the early-1940s, Smith decided to go to Lhasa with the help of one of the monk's contacts, who would smuggle him out through China. Once there, he anticipated he would be able to connect with the US military, his return to America ensured. 86.129.243.160 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an accurate statement. Did you have a question? DOR (HK) (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=1012757657"