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.

July 13

Given names without surname derivatives

It seems there are some Russian given names whose surname derivatives, unlike the majority (such as Ivan - Ivanov, etc), are super-rare among notable persons (and quite rare if social media accounts are included), despite their equally old origin. There are Oleg, Vladislav, Vyacheslav and a few others for which surnames Olegov, Vladislavov or Vyacheslavov are almost non-existent. For Gennadiy-derived Gennadyev googling returns just two notable persons and for Nikita-derived Nikitov only one. Same goes for English names, where there's no Anthonyson, Edgarson or Benjaminson, as compared to e.g. John - Johnson, while there was only one Henryson. Why is that? Brandmeister^talk 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that regarding -son names in English-speaking countries doesn't necessarily derive from English first names, I think many have Nordic origins (many 'Nelsons' in US derive from 'Nilssons', many 'Parson' were 'Persson', 'Johansson' becoming 'Johnson' etc). Thus the prevalence of English male first names doesn't necessarily match English family names. --Soman (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister -- You seem to be skipping over the patronymic stage. The evolution in many cases was from given or first name to patronymic, then patronymic to surname. The modern Icelandic and Russian languages still have well-developed patronymic systems, but in Russian the patronymics end in -ich (masculine) and -na (feminine), not -ov. English has never had a thorough-going patronymic system... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain why some widespread names produced very few surnames, if any. As for English, it could be argued that surnames ending with -son or 's were originally patronymics, e.g. Stephen - Stephenson, the son of Stephen, or Roberts - the son of Robert. Yet there are no Henrys/Henrison or Alfreds/Alfredson for some reason. Brandmeister^talk 01:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's Harrison (name) and also Alfredson. And Benson (surname). --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames from Henry also include Henderson, Hendricks(on), Harris. —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I think you'll find that surnames formed from a given name + son are very much the exception rather than the rule. Given names are not generally productive. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of names of the form given name + son. Albertson, Anderson, Benson, Carlson, Davidson, Edmondson, Frederickson, Grayson, Harrison, Jackson, Jacobson, Jameson, Johnson, Larson, Mathewson, Nelson, Olson, Paulson, Robertson, Smithson, Williamson, and on and on. This website[1] has 1,367 names ending in "son". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Edison (from Edgar, Edward or Edwin), Hodgeson (from Roger), Wilson and Wilkinson (from William), Robson and Robinson (from Robert), Benson (from Benjamin), Thomson and Thompson (from Thomas), Anderson (from Andrew) and so on. Also the suffix "kin" also demotes a child, so Wilkin is "little William". BTW, I'm sure Olson is Scandinavian rather than English. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge many English names of this pattern are in fact of Scandinavian origin, Viking settlers in what became England had a very significant and lasting influence on English society. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true Roger, but I suspect that most Anglo-Danes were fully Anglicised by the late Medieval period when surnames were being adopted in England. Dictionary of American Family Names says "Olson - Americanized spelling of Swedish OLSSON or Danish and Norwegian OLSEN". The name is more common in the USA and Canada, and almost half of British Olsons live in London, [2] which has been a city of migrants for several centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One factor is that the English adopted other ways surnaming in addition to patronymics… examples include naming by professions (Smith, Cooper, Carter) or by physical features near where they lived (Green, Hill, Rivers). Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; see Surname#History, Patronymic surname, Category:Occupational surnames, Toponymic surname. Also Nickname which produces surnames such as White, Cruikshanks ("crooked legs"), Wagpole, Drinkwater and Littlejohn, as well as some occupational names which were given as jokes, like King, Abbott and Bishop. For a good overview, see the introduction to A Dictionary of English Surnames Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after deeper insight, I've read that Russian names like Valentin and those ending with -slav have been either restricted to monks or suppressed by Orthodox Church as pagan, being revived only in the 19th century, meaning either none or only few surnames managed to emerge from them. Brandmeister^talk 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most English surnames were established in the Middle Ages, so for patronymic surnames on -s(on), one can expect a correspondence between the more common ones and the more popular medieval male given names and nicknames. I suppose Anthony, Edgar and Benjamin were not that popular. --Lambiam 21:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, we do have Benson and Edison, however Tonyson and Tennyson apparently relate to Dennis. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though possibly the most popular given names would be less likely to generate surnames. If lots of men in the village are named John, using the surname Johnson to distinguish your family from the others isn't much use. Chuntuk (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that the suffix -son is not the only patronymic form that English uses; see fitz-, for example. I would consider Geraldson to be a pretty rare surname (though certainly in existence), but Fitzgerald is common. There are probably other affixes used (Patronymic#English mentions -ing), but none that I'm familiar with. Shells-shells (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brandmeister, the short answer to your question is that the Russian names you mentioned were not popular during the period when most Russian surnames were formed (that is, the 18th and 19th centuries). The names Oleg and Vyacheslav were not used by peasants which historically constituted more than 96% of Russian population. Possibly because they were not considered properly Christian (I can't readily recall any saints with those names). These names were used in pre-Mongol Rus and then gained popularity with the urban population in the 20th century (by which time most people had acquired their surnames). Besides, the surnames are usually derived from hypocoristic forms: e.g., Slavin rather than Vyacheslavov. The name Vladislav is not East Slavic, it is adapted from Polish Władysław, so not old enough to have surnames derived from it. As for Nikita, the surname "Nikitin" is very common; see ru:Никитин for numerous examples. You should remember than the surnames derived from "-a" stems normally end with "-in" rather than "-ov" (e.g., "Pushkin" from "pushka", "Pushkov" from "pushok"). Ghirla^-трёп- 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Eastwood

James Eastwood was a British writer and screenwriter who has an article on the French wikipedia [3] but not this one. He wrote the novelizations of a couple of successful films starring Humphrey Bogart, namely Murder, Inc. (from the British title of The Enforcer) in 1952 and Deadline, also in 1952 (derived from Deadline – U.S.A.). He also wrote the screenplay for Devil Girl from Mars but his name is unlinked on the page. His novels were best-sellers in France and published by major publishers, but there doesn't seem to be anything concerning him later than the early 1970s. He is listed as born in 1918 with no death date, and while there's a small chance he may still be alive, would anyone be able to confirm this or provide a date of death. Xuxl (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat doesn't mention his death date either. This book states that "little is known beyond the fact that his career stretched from the 1940s to the 1970s". If he's alive, he would be 104 now. Brandmeister^talk 20:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That matches the little I could find about him. Xuxl (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This mini bio talks about him in the past tense, implying he is no longer with us. --Lambiam 08:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists his published crime fiction (also shown on Worldcat) but no details beyond a birth date of 1918. His IMDb page (apparently not a Reliable Source for Wikipedia) has a considerable list of film and TV credits. Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the name could have been a pseudonym, since no one seems to know anything about him beyond his published works and numerous screenwriter credits, and there is absolutely no information about him that's later than his last published book, in 1972. For someone who was fairly prominent in the movie world in the 1950s and 1960s, it's strange that he would have disappeared seemingly without a trace. I was hoping someone would gave better luck than me tracking him down. Xuxl (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in notation, Scarlatti

I was looking at the beginning piece in the 1742 XIV Scarlatti manuscript (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Domenico_Scarlatti&filefrom=Scarlatti%2C+Sonate+K.+406+-+ms.+Parme+XI%2C19+%28page+3%29.jpg#/media/File:Scarlatti,_Sonate_K._43_-_ms._Venise_XIV,1.jpg), which would be k 43 and im curious as to why the notation has been changed?

For instance the notion for k.43, the modern versions, now have two flats in the key signature rather than the one b flat in the original. Reading Thurston Dart has made me rather weary so I would appreciate some insight for these alterations of a much older source (The aforementioned 1742 Venice manuscript)

thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:AC77:FD72:50FC:6E6F (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The puzzling thing to me is not the modern key signature, but that in the ms. The piece is clearly in G minor (note the F♯s), and all the E*s are E♭s, except for the last lower one in the top stave, but that is obviously by mistake. It is common that modern editions follow the modern notational conventions. --Lambiam 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This author[4] (see page 38) seems to be of the opinion in that Scarlatti's early works, his concept of tonality was based off of the medieval modes. They specifically calls out the example of writing g minor with one flat as a result of that orientation, although they don't mention K. 43 spcifically.

One other possibility that I found passing references to were that the key signature was a way of indicating the tuning for the instrument. Keyboard instruments of that era weren't generally tuned in equal temperament, so an instrument tuned to d minor, but played in g minor, would sound different than one tuned and played in g minor. But I'm not sure about that one... the reference there was pretty ambiguous. PianoDan (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

both, thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:ECBD:C4EC:6023:D4A4 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

What do you call this kind of relationship: customer's customers.

Where you can sell to your customer, but not to your customer's customer. The most common example is grocery wholesale warehouses, they sell to grocery stores, but not to restaurants (because restaurants buy from grocery stores). I remember working at 1, and remember seeing a restaurant owner try to buy from the wholesale, they took him to the owner's on, who says "we only sell to restaurants if you own 25 restaurants. Otherwise, if you buy from us directly, you hurt our (grocery store) customers."

And to give a lesser-known example, I once worked for an asphalt company in the U.S. I asked my co-worker about the 1st week on the job, do we sell to the state government (for the highways). (State Department of Transportation.). He asked 1 of the owners of the company, who said "No they buy from our customers, but we don't sell to them directly." I didn't ask why couldn't we sell directly to them, must be due to this "relationship." I wonder what do we call this in economics? I suspect economists have a term for this. But since this is the state government as a customer's customers, 1 wonders what harm would it do if the state bought for a cheaper price, and therefore has more money, and can lower public expenses.

So for a 2nd question, does anyone know of any cases where the industry permanently changed (~90%), where a customer's customer became customer, or vice versa? Thanks. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

There are many terms for the "middle man" in the relationship. A few examples... It could be a supplier: A business that supplies goods/supplies to another business. It could be a distributor: A business that stores goods/supplies and provides them to other businesses as they need them. It could be a wholesaler: A business that stocks goods/supplies and sells them at a discount compared to retail price so retailers can make a profit by reselling those goods/supplies. It isn't a simple manufacturer-supplier-customer model. It is usually something like a manufacturer-distributor-shipper-supplier-distributer-wholesaer-retailer-customer model. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the second question, there are examples of disruption in this model. For example, Amazon removed the retailer at first by going straight from a warehouse to the end customer. Now, there are retailers on Amazon, so it wasn't permanent. Another example are the wholesale stores that give wholesale prices to end customers. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit outside the scope of your question, but restaurants typically don't buy from grocery stores except in emergencies. Grocery stores sell to the public so they charge what are referred to as retail prices, which include a significant markup from their cost of goods. Restaurants, both independent ones and those in a chain or buying group, buy from wholesale foodservice distributors like Sysco and Gordon Food Service. Besides getting a better deal on the sale price, their agreement will also include delivery, rebates, bill backs, and other complications that simply don't exist at the retail level. A foodservice distributor will also offer material and services not found at grocery stores, such as commercial-sized foods, restaurant-quality smallwares, equipment, and warehousing for printed materials from logo cups to branded clothing. They're two almost entirely distinct supply chains.

An interesting tid-bit on that subject became apparent to everyone about two years ago when toilet paper suddenly became in short supply - those shortages were primarily driven by demand switching from a long-established ratio to an entirely new one as restaurants closed and home TP needs skyrocketed. The two drew from different supply chains and different manufacturing locations, even if the name on the box was the same. Matt Deres (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on that, I feel it is important to note that an average retail customer cannot purchase from a large-volume distributor or supplier. I tried once. I wanted edible roses, which were not available at any retail location I could find. They were available from a restaurant food supplier. I tried and tried ot place an order, but my order was far too small to deal with the paperwork, so I was ignored. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The reason why is that foodservice warehouses are set up (both physically in terms of racking as well as logistically) to exploit the economies of scale so that they can afford to operate with thinner margins. Single customers don't fit well into that setup; the overhead required to get a new customer set up would never get repaid by a one off purchase, even if it was sizable. It's just not their thing. Matt Deres (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm the place I worked at was just for fruits and vegetables. Which only sold to grocery stores, they did not allow to sell to restaurants. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Who is "they"? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place the IP worked at. --Lambiam 09:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was under the impression that restaurants buy fruits and vegetables from grocery stores, but everything else, they buy to suppliers of restaurants. But if there are wholesale-suppliers of fruits and vegetables to grocery stores-only, and wholesale suppliers of fruits and vegetables to restaurants only, that would be interesting. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

When you say "not allowed", it sounds like some kind of legal restriction. If it's the company's choice, then it's merely their business plan. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are different set ups. Most broadline foodservice distributors include produce as part of their goods offered, though it's typically with the help of a "sister" company that specializes in that stuff. For example, Sysco is a broadline foodservice distributor and FreshPoint is their affiliated produce specialist. Produce, fresh seafood, smallwares, fresh bread, and sometimes meat primals are offerings that broadline distributors sometimes "farm out" to specialists. In Ontario, for example, Flanagan Foodservice is a broadline distributor which owns Roseland Produce Wholesale (fruit and produce) and is sister companies with STOP Restaurant Supply (smallwares and equipment) and has longstanding relationships with Caudle's Seafood and The Butcher Shoppe so that their customers can place one order and have access to all those offerings.

In places where the population is high enough to support the model, some restaurants, especially higher end ones, also make use of "jobbers" - specialized tiny companies that may deliver daily or even multiple times daily for items like bread, produce and seafood. These are typically higher quality and larger sizes than you'd see in a grocery store, but the restaurant is willing to use them because of the quality and convenience, even if the price is inflated.

I don't work in grocery supply - and situations can be different all over the place - but there are multiple reasons why a grocery store DC wouldn't want to supply to a restaurant, from logistical reasons to purely bureaucratic ones. You can't just walk up to a Martin-Brower warehouse and ask to buy some Big Mac burger patties. It's simply not allowed - those cases are for McDonald's exclusive use.It's probably similar for grocery suppliers. Matt Deres (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the Yules have come at once

Prompted by a question on the language desk, are there any verifiable connections between these people who share a surname?

*Sir Henry Yule (1820 – 1889), Scottish Orientalist and geographer, compiler of the Hobson-Jobson

*George Yule (businessman) (1829-1892), part of the family that created Andrew Yule and Company

*George Yule (linguist) (born 1947) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was this Viscountess Petersham?

"In October 1748, a ball was held at Dublin Castle by the Viscountess Petersham" - an event which served as the unofficial debut for two Irish sisters who went on to marry very well, Elizabeth Hamilton, 1st Baroness Hamilton of Hameldon and Maria Coventry, Countess of Coventry. The quoted sentence is from our articles. Dublin Castle is of course the seat of government, the residence of the Chief governor of Ireland. The man holding that office in 1748 was William Stanhope, 1st Earl of Harrington (1683-1756), who had been created Viscount Petersham in 1742. His wife Anne Griffiths had died in 1719, so she was never became viscountess. Did he re-marry? If so, to whom? If not, who served as the social and political hostess at the Castle? I know that sometimes a man without a wife would have a daughter, sister, or niece act in this role. Is there any precedent for a woman in this position using the title, as if she were his wife? It seems odd. But would a Chief Governor without a "First Lady" be able to hold a ball? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington's eldest son would have been known as VIscount Petersham, by courtesy. Petersham married Lady Caroline Fitzroy in 1746, so she would have been known as Viscountess Petersham. DuncanHill (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Peace-promoting anti-war art and literature

We do have a User:Boud promoted WP:Peace project. We seem to have a Category:Anti-war paintings and articles like The Apotheosis of War, I am contemplating possibilities of draft article in respect to Peace-promoting anti-war art and literature.

Requesting and looking for citation and bibliographic information regarding

Research about the effects of anti-war art/ literature on peace processes
Instances of the art / literature on building career of peace activist and leadership
Instances of the art / literature on to voting pro-war politicians out of power?
Did the art lead to creating new peacebuilding institutions?

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment that there are people who study these sort of things and get their research peer-reviewed. I'm not the best person to find specific research articles that answer these questions, though. Boud (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's Mark Twain's War Prayer. In the cases I know about, such art does not lead to voting politicians out of power when they're actually supervising combat, but helps set the mood for the post-war aftermath (in the case of World War I, see Nye Committee, King and Country debate etc). AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information, thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside: "Peace-promoting" is redundant when you already have "anti-war". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted, thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian support for the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt

Is it known approximately how many Turkish civilians supported the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt back then and/or what is the level of support now or at some point since then? Including both actively in the streets and passively, in principle. Also, are there any photos of civilians supporting the coup attempt? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly during the coup, which at the time was mostly limited to military and government officials and lacked any organized popular support; however in the aftermath and subsequent purges by the Erdogan government, the 2017 March for Justice did represent a popular response in support of the failed coup. --Jayron 32 19:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not correct to view this march as support for the failed coup. It was a protest against the government rounding up tens of thousands of people and removing many people from their jobs, ultimately more than a hundred thousand, judges, civil servants and academics, basically anyone known to be opposed to Erdoğan's authoritarianism, under the pretext that they had been secret coup plotters. Most of these people were progressives supporting democracy and secularism, strongly opposed to coups in general, and most certainly Islamist coup attempts like this failed coup. For the craven lawless arbitrariness in charging and convicting prominent opponents of authoritarianism, see the case of Osman Kavala. --Lambiam 09:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are photographs of civilians who were lynched on the (mostly mistaken) suspicion that they supported the coup attempt. Publicly expressing criticism of Erdoğan, which would be implied by supporting the coup attempt, is a good way to get arrested and convicted to a long prison sentence. Since the Turkish left strongly condemned the coup attempt, supporters should not expect any pity from the opposition either, so do not expect anyone to stand up and say, gee, I wish the coup had succeeded. --Lambiam 09:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Rukiye and Hatice Hanim; ? → Ottoman → Malaysia

Rukiye Hanim and Hatice Hanim the two sisters were sent over by Ottoman royals to Malaysia royals ( still a politically influential family Malaysia).

Seeking help in citations and bibliographic information from English, Turkish, Malaysian languages.

Also whether Turkish or Malaysian language Wikipedias have any article about the sisters?

Thanks, Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Hanım is a title, the feminine counterpart of the title Han, usually rendered as Khan, equivalent to "Lord". In English you'd say, "Lady Rukiye and Lady Hatice". --Lambiam 07:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to a paper with the title "The Myth and Reality of Rukiye Hanim in the Context of Turkish Malay Relations (1864-1904)". I don't see anything related on the Turkish Wikipedia. The Malay Wikipedia has several search results for "Datin Roquaiya Hanim", but little information and no separate article. --Lambiam 08:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an archived article on Roquaiya Hanim published in The Star. --Lambiam 08:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We are muddled into war" - alleged quotation

I have recently (in the last twerty minutes or so) seen the phrase "We are muddled into war" appearing as an alleged quotation from David Lloyd George. I am fairly sure the attribution is spurious - and indeed I rather think the phrase itself is of recent coinage. Can anyone cast some light on the matter? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is in The Military Quotation Book, 1990 in the form "We all muddled into war". Not definitive since there's no source, but at least not made up yesterday. Further back, here it is again quoted by AJP Taylor, 1977. Card Zero (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the form "We muddled into war" ascribed to LlG's War Memoirs, but without chapter and verse, and I can't find it in scans. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volume I p.596 has I had to undertake the terrible responsibility of Premiership in a muddled war, with at least half my own party and more than half the Labour Party bitterly hostile, and a considerable section of the Tory Party, and that's the closest I've found so far. I'm finding several weirdly similar quotes from different people, all writing in 1918: "we are muddling into peace even worse than we muddled into war", "Shall we, when the war has been won for us by America, muddle into an armed peace, as unarmed we muddled into war", "We muddled into war, and we shall muddle into peace". So perhaps this is something DLG said in 1918 and they're all echoing it. Card Zero (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first byline is simply "The People" (i.e., the editorial staff of The Nation), the second is Austin Harrison who is editor of the journal he's writing in, and the third is (war) industrialist William Lionel Hichens. I mean, they all write pretty slick phrasings (except the second), but none of the names carry the gravitas of DLG, which is what you need for a good timeless quotation.

But for all three to have used almost identical phrasing at around the same time at different places, it had to have been a somewhat known description ("muddled" at the very least) for some time in higher circles. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December 1914 the Saturday Review was saying "We may well be said to have muddled into the war so far as our military preparations were concerned". A pamphlet which Google Books dates 1914 (but can we believe it?) has "Very likely we have muddled into this war. But it is not a muddle of which we need be ashamed." It feels to me like they're both making a topical allusion to a phrase that was being quoted at the time, but I have no solid attribution to Lloyd George. [5] --Antiquary (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we can believe the date; the text appeared originally in The Morning Post of August 25, 1914. --Lambiam 19:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found August 1914 as well, and was surprised that nothing in it named the year of publication, only the dates within the year for each of the essays making up the book. However, one of them observes that Britain has now declared war. So yes, published in 1914. And the author is Spenser Wilkinson. So if David Lloyd George used the phrase, I'd guess Wilkinson made it famous and Lloyd George was alluding to his wording. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1899 the Morning Post was wondering whether "the class of men who have muddled into war are the most competent leaders to muddle out of it". DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, then, this was already an idiom in the early 20th century, which sprang to every pundit's mind when war broke out. One of the books I looked at (from the 1980s) called it "Lloyd George's famous admission that we muddled into war". It gave no source, naturally, though I've seen a couple of other places where it was attributed to his memoirs, 1934. Yet extensive searching through them says no. Maybe a fly crawled into the scanner at the crucial page? But I tried two different versions of all six volumes. Card Zero (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried scans of the Ivor Nicholson & Watson edition, the Little, Brown edition, and the Odhams edition. I am certain it is not in the War Memoirs. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it in The Truth About the Peace Treaties, Through Terror to Triumph, The Great Crusade, or Is It Peace?. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sat through an hour of a BBC Timewatch documentary, called I think Lloyd George's War,* in case the quote came up, but it didn't. I also watched a Pathé newsreel in which he didn't say it. It could have been something spoken aloud, though. Maybe it's yet to be found in some other newsreel. Or radio broadcast.

*This was a pleasant experience and passed the time while I inflated a paddling pool. Card Zero (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's also not in 1917's The Wit and Wisdom of David Lloyd George or 1929's Slings and Arrows. Now we've exhausted his books, there does remain his newspaper columns (sadly uncollected), and the numerous prefaces and forewords he wrote for the books of others. I am familiar with most of the latter, and do not recall seeing it in any of them, and given the combined assault on the problem by editors here I rather suspect that we would have turned it up by now if it had appeared in the press. I think Taylor misremembered, and then others have (mis)quoted his slip. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a curious one: this is from yet another Liberal periodical, The Speaker, and uses the phrase "the men who muddled into and through the war" in the context of (but not about) Asquith and Lloyd George. The date, however, is 1903! So the second Boer War, presumably. Card Zero (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as was the 1899 Morning Post quotation above. The idea of war being a result of muddle rather than policy seems somewhat ingrained. DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same, but the phrase "meddle and muddle" shows up in the House of Lords on Feb 4, 1864, spoken by Lord Derby in criticism of Lord Russell's foreign policy; see here. Use of the word "muddle" in Parliament greatly increases after that point, as visible by searching Hansard. Shells-shells (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pamphlet with that second quote was by military historian Spenser Wilkinson, and was reprinted in a 1914 book: "Very likely we have muddled into this war ..." Card Zero (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the language desk, but I'm kinda fascinated by the use of the "to be" auxiliary for the present perfect here. Modern English uses that pretty much only for "gone" as far as I know, and even that's arguable; it's not clear that "I am gone" is a present perfect rather than just a predicate adjective. Poetic uses still exist for "come" and "become", as in Oppenheimer's famous personal translation of the Upanishad and Dylan Thomas's "A Refusal to Mourn". How would it suddenly pop up for "muddle"? --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just the simple present, like "I am fascinated by grammar"? (Or is that also an example of the present perfect? Am I muddling?) Card Zero (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's present passive, as I allude to below. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, because of the be. Card Zero (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose another possibility is that it's a passive; that is, that someone else is muddling us into war. I'm not really familiar with "muddle" as a transitive verb, except what you do to the mint leaves in a julep. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "are" here is simply an error, misquoting "all". --174.95.81.219 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Boring. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Were the Meenas called Bhils?

^[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kumar, Pramod (1984). Folk Icons and Rituals in Tribal Life. Abhinav. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-8-17017-185-0.

An influential Hungarian lady

In Chapter II of David Lloyd George's War Memoirs we read "I remember that some time in July [1914], an influential Hungarian lady, whose name I have forgotten, called upon me at 11, Downing Street, and told me that we were taking the assassination of the Grand Duke much too quietly; that it had provoked such a storm throughout the Austrian Empire as she had never witnessed, and that unless something were done immediately to satisfy and appease resentment, it would certainly result in war with Serbia, with the incalculable consequences which such an operation might precipitate in Europe". Who was that lady? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was Rosika Schwimmer, according to this paper Between Front Lines. (Read from "Setting the Scene - Schwimmers's Pacifist Prelude in London".) Card Zero (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Card Zero: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious education in Kerala

I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches. Requesting help for bibliographic info for religious education other than Islam.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your coverage of Islam. You should mention the St Thomas Christians who have been in Kerala since at least the second century. The Portuguese, who are fiercely Roman Catholic, disrupted the Nestorian hierarchy, and they are now split between uniates, various non-Chalcedonian oriental churches other than the Nestorian, and Protestants. 78.149.211.210 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could try:

Good hunting! Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @Alansplodge Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

Maximum high-speed duration and range of an F-14

How long (time/distance) would an F-14 have been able to go maximum speed? --KnightMove (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't seem to say, but a lot of the performance specs we do have apparently come from a handful of sources: this one from the US Navy, which also doesn't have the info and a book with these publishing details: Spick, Mike. "F-14 Tomcat". The Great Book of Modern Warplanes. St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing Company, 2000. I can't seem to find a viewable preview on line, but possibly it has the details you want. Maybe your library has it or could procure it? It's also available at Amazon, etc. A bit of a long shot, TBH; if the Navy didn't publish the details, I don't know who else would have it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Müller is she a Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent ???

Hello, I strongly disagree over categories re-added by @Bedivere on Henrietta Müller. Henrietta Müller was born in Valparaiso in an English-German Family of expats. The family settled back in England and she went to college at Girton, then spent her entire life in England as did her family. There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc. I consider that she cannot be "categorized" as, I quote, "Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent". Any opinions ? (English is not my native language) Best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I asked this question in Tea House Wikipedia:Teahouse#Henrietta Müller is she a Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent ??? but was answered that it was not the proper page for this question. I try here (I'm not too familiar with help pages in WP:EN (I mainly contribute on WP:FR), thank you for your attention, best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have no previous knowledge of this subject, my opinion is that most or all of those categories are appropriate for the article, since she was born and at least partially raised in Chile. They are not designed to strictly define Müller (since they are in the context of a much longer set of categories), but to aid Wikipedia users who may be exploring those topics and would want to be aware of her.

The proper page to discuss this question is the Talk page of the article, where Bedivere (with whom you disagree) has already posted their reasons for adding/restoring (some of) them. The established procedure here is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Bedivere, in good faith, boldly added some of the categories, you disagreed with them and reverted the additions, now you should civilly discuss the matter on the Talk page (where others may care to join in) until you reach a mutually agreed compromise. You might want to read through Wikipedia:Categorization first. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as a matter of fact, I want other advices, but I don't think many contributors follow this discussion page. According to me, it's irrelevant to state that Henrietta Müller could be a "Chilean expatriate in England", I don't want to make a fuss of it nor spend the day on it, if everybody here is confortable with making Henrietta Müller a Chilean journalist or Chilean suffragist, etc. let it be so, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could try posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography asking other editors to join the discussion, but that ought to be on the article's talk page. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try having a variant Third culture kid added to Category Expatriates. TCK (Third culture kid) is already linked to in Existential migration. TCK could be used as an argument linking the subject to cosmopolitanism; either because she was excluded from recognition in the nations or was feeling so, or because she was missing a feeling of real regarding her statute as a Chilean national. Diplomatically speaking I'd probably delegate something of the categorization problem to Chilean women. Retrospectively they might prefer they needed her as suffragist. --Askedonty (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muller was born in Chile, lived there 9 years, then moved to London, lived in London 2 years, and then moved back to Chile for a shorter period ([6]). At the time of her birth, and still, Chile practiced jus solis, so she was definitely a Chilean citizen at birth. That said, adding her to all kinds of Chilean bio categories might be disproportionate, I'd say it would suffice with just 'Chilean people of German descent'. --Soman (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Of special interest is a hand - illuminatd document headed ANANDAMAYA KOSA : ' A Theosophical gathering on September 4 , 1893 , ' inscribed with Sanskrit characters at the top and Sinhalese in the margins , and signed by the following thirteen representatives of different countries : Gyanendra N. Chakravarti ( Allahabad , India ) , H. Dhamapala ( Ceylon ) , Annie Besant ( Ireland ) , William Q. Judge ( Ireland ) , Henrietta Müller ( Chile ) ,... " ([7], p. 114) --Soman (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Lawyer and Advocate

What is the difference between a lawyer and an advocate? I was solving some interwiki link conflicts on Wikidata when I bumped across this. Reading the article, I can't make out any real difference. Can someone help? I hope this is the correct Reference Desk for it. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An "advocate" would seem to be a more specific kind of "lawyer". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Advocacy" is arguing your client's case in Court. In the U S the legal profession is not split, so attorneys can advise their clients and represent them in court. In Britain it is split - barristers take instructions from solicitors in the form of "briefs" which they argue in court on behalf of the solicitor's client (the plaintiff/defendant). Nowadays solicitors have limited audience rights. In Portugal (the only civil law country whose legal system I am familiar with) the profession is not split and both solicitadores and advogados appear to have rights of audience. 78.149.211.210 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding a barrister in Scotland! This is your regular reminder that Britain has more than one legal system. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An advocate does not need to be a lawyer. For example, Court Appointed Special Advocates for children in the United States. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to make it clearer, the term "advocate" is a term d'art which differs wildly between different legal systems. You need to indicate in which specific jurisdiction you are asking about. --Jayron 32 11:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian classical dances

To any Russian users or anyone who speaks Russian or anyone who studied Russian culture, is the term “Russian classical dance” can be also described Russian traditional dances? Alastair McCapra aka McCapra wanted me to find a source that term can be also expanded into traditional dances of Russia. This is going to be really hard because I cannot speak Russian fluently. Please help. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian, the term "classical dance" means ballet, not traditional folk dances. See ru:Классический танец, for instance. Igor Moiseyev's type of dancing goes by the name of ru:Народно-сценический танец. Ghirla^-трёп- 22:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these categories would an investment account fall under?

I'm applying for a mortgage, and I'm currently listing my assets. I have an investment account I want to add, with the following dropbar options:

Certificate of Deposit
Checking Account
Gift of Cash
Gift of Property Equity
Money Market Fund
Mutual Funds
Pending Net Sale Proceeds From Real Estate Assets
Retirement Funds
Savings Account
Stock

Any idea which category I should pick for it? --Aabicus (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on HOW your account is invested… it could fit in several categories: containing a mix of stocks, municipal bonds, mutual funds, Money Market funds etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll talk to my advisor. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction --Aabicus (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lastname "Prolife"

Abortion is a contentious issue in the US. One side of the debate is commonly called "pro-life".

I noticed that this US politican[8] has the lastname "Prolife". Is this lastname somehow related to the abortion debate (as in, the person intentionally changed their natural lastname to this one)?

Thanks for your help. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his LinkedIn page… I would say an intentional change of name is likely. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Byron (Low Tax) Looper lol! 68.4.99.100 (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Christina's letter

The article Christina, Queen of Sweden shows this letter she wrote to Decio Azzolino. Note the long sequences of numbers in between the text. What do they mean? Is it some kind of code? JIP | Talk 22:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources on Google Books confirm that she used cipher to mask the most intimate passages in her letters to Azzolino. Ghirla^-трёп- 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Decio Azzolino says "Azzolino burnt most of their correspondence; about 80 letters have survived. Some details were written in a code that was decrypted by Carl Bildt in Rome around 1900". Here is the archived page used as a reference. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

2022 White House Correspondents' Dinner wordle joke

I was watching the 2022 White House Correspondents' Dinner and came across this joke:

And yet, the biggest deaths threats that you received is because there were two Ls in the wordle that day. [9]

Is this in reference to any specific incident? Was there actually a wordle puzzle with two Ls in the solution and people got worked up over it?

I googled "new york times two ls in wordle" and "new york times wordle death threats" and nothing relevant came up.

I understand that the The New York Times Company recently purchased Wordle. I understand that it could be the case that there were no specific incidents and that this is a general joke about "people getting too worked up over a puzzle game".Daniel T Wolters (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people take it as offensive when the answer proved to be a word in American spelling (particularly since Wardle in British and the game used to be on a British web site). You know, who on Earth could imagine that COLOR was an actual word? (I don't remember what the specific words were.) Now, there are words where British and American versions differ in the number of L's (e.g. TRAVELLER), but I don't know of any that are 5 letters long, so I think this is something else. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People get upset when the Wordle has more than one occurrence of a letter as it makes it trickier to determine the word. I don't think the letter L has a special meaning, apart from it being a reasonably common letter to show up twice in a word. Matt Deres (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I think I get the joke now. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it actually affects the joke, but a possible candidate is 19 March 2022, when the answer was ALLOW:

"Today’s answer will be a tough one for many players, largely due to the duplicate consonant" - from one of many websites that give away the daily answer for those without scruples. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I agree that it's very likely that ALLOW partly inspired the joke. The White House Correspondents' Dinner was April 20th, so roughly a month after the ALLOW puzzle. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the [UK minus NI] south-biased?

Some people say north of the line between Norfolk bay and south of Wales bay is already North England, and the bishop ranked #2 after Canterbury who represents the north is only at York, not that far north. Maybe the population distribution of actually far north England is still affected by the ancient threat of Scottish invasion? Then in Scotland the biggest two cities are in the south, Aberdeen's significantly smaller than than either and not that north, Inverness is smaller than that and Wick even smaller. Also only a few million live in Scotland but like 60 million in England and Wales. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By Norfolk bay, I presume you mean the Wash - not sure about south of Wales bay, is that the Bristol Channel or Cardigan Bay? Mikenorton (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Wash, I forgot what you call it. And the Bristol Channel not Cardigan Bay. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Population density is high in the south-east of England, due to the favourable climate and proximity to the capital city of the UK, London. The city has many industries and is a global financial centre". [10] Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the south-west? I mean the other side of London, near Winchester. Ticks all the same boxes. Edit: I checked the population densities and they're almost the same, so I guess yes, the rest of the south is affluent and crowded too. Card Zero (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Scotland, see Scottish Highlands. They're pretty, but generally get in the way. Card Zero (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The south-west is more remote from the continent of Europe. You can see the phenomenon in North America - the northern areas of the contiguous states are sparsely populated, but a few miles north over the Canadian border are the huge metropolises, right across the continent, because that is the warmest and most popular part of the country. 79.73.129.243 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian border metropolises (metropoli?) are fairly close to rather large U.S. cities as well, though. See Great Lakes megalopolis, Pacific Northwest (Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle-Portland). Those two urban conglomerations contain the majority of the really large Canadian population centers; excepting the plains cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg, of which only the last is close to the U.S. border, and aren't parts of major megalopolises like the Great Lakes region is. The point is, your really not that correct; most Canadian cities near the U.S. border are parts of larger cross-border megalopolises and not isolated from U.S. population centers. --Jayron 32 18:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Ere Saggy, me ol' china plate,... as most Londoners know, Ver Norff begins at Watford Gap. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC) p.s. Norfolk bay?? I assume you meant The Wash.[reply]

Also, it's beyond Hatfield. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.199 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The further you are from London and the Channel ports, the greater your costs if you want to move goods or people to where the money is. It's a vicious circle, the more people and businesses move to the Southeast, the greater the imperative is to be located there. For recent attempts to break the circle, see Levelling-up policy of the Boris Johnson government. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Let's hear it for good old Michael "snake hips" Gove! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that they were successful attempts. Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the name. The gap is essentially on the line. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's North–South divide in the United Kingdom. I didn't link to it before because it's annoyingly vague and says (I paraphrase) "nobody's sure where the line is exactly" and "maybe this isn't even a thing, except in some ways it is". Card Zero (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a thing, it would undoubtedly appear on our List of things that are things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 analysis contains a map, which shows the dividing line extending from the Bristol Channel up to the River Humber, although not including Hull. Worcester is in the north apparently and Leicester is in the south, although, as every self-respecting Midlander knows, they're both in the English Midlands, which tend to get forgotten in this debate. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite surprising, but that line in Figure 2.2 it's meant to show a "clear North-west– South-east gradient to life expectancy." So not quite the same as the economic North-South thing? (and yes, people do live longer in Norwich - it's so cold in the Winter, people there enter a state of human cryogenesis) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The boom in Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution, largely in the north/midlands, perhaps led to a rust belt effect after industrial decline? Card Zero (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why there are two separate articles "North-South divide in the United Kingdom" and "North-South divide in England", but there are. Traditionally, the River Trent was often considered to be the boundary between north and south in England... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because UK geography is complicated by the fact that the UK is a country of countries, and while it is a single sovereign state, there is still a place called "England" which is distinct from "Scotland", culturally speaking. But this is not unique to the UK and England. It's possible to speak of northern vs. southern cultural distinctions in a country and separately in one of its subdivision. The Southern United States and South Florida can happily co-exist, even though Florida is part of the United States (and many people tend to only include North Florida in the Southern United States, just to confuse the situation even more...) --Jayron 32 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the two articles both suggest that it is the south of England which is the more prosperous, and largely cover the same ground. Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Per the article, MLK wrote the letter in 1963 while locked up for breaking a wide injunction against "parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing". He later got bailed out with $100,000 that supporters raised, equivalent to a heck of a lot more in today's dollars.

By today's standards that injunction sounds ridiculous on 1A grounds. My main question: Did the case ever go to trial? What happened? Today I'd like to imagine the city having to pay a big settlement for locking him up in the first place, but back then, who knows. I also wonder how long he was actually in jail, and what the charge was. If it was civil contempt of court, I didn't realize posting bail was possible, but I guess it makes sense. IANAL and not seeking legal advice. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a bit longer passage from Why We Can't Wait, pp. 90–91 in the 2000 Signet Classic edition (ISBN 9780451527530):

    One more factor helped to encourage us in the belief that our goals were coming within reach. We had demonstrated in defiance of a civil injunction. For this act of disobedience, we had been cited for contempt. In Alabama, if you are cited for criminal contempt, you serve five days and that is the end of it. If you are cited for civil contempt, however, you figuratively hold the jailhouse keys in the palm of your hand. At any time, if you are willing to recant, you can earn release. If you do not recant, you can be held for the rest of your natural life.
    Most of the demonstrators had been cited for criminal contempt. About ten of us, however, all leaders of the movement, had been cited for civil contempt. When we were first placed under this charge, I am certain that the Birmingham authorities believed we would back down rather than face the threat of indefinite imprisonment. But by the time we appeared in court late in April to answer the charges, all of Birmingham knew that we would never recant, even if we had to rot away in their jails. The city thus faced the prospect of putting us into jail for life. Confronted with the certain knowledge that we would not give in, the city attorney undoubtedly realized that he would be sentencing us to a martyrdom which must eventually turn the full force of national public opinion against Birmingham.
    Abruptly the tactics were reversed. The civil-contempt charge was changed to the less stringent criminal-contempt charge, under which we were swiftly convicted on April 26. In addition, the judge announced that he would delay sentence and give us about twenty days to file an appeal. At this point there was little doubt in our minds that Birmingham's bastions of segregation were weakening.

I hope this is still fair use; it explains all, including how blindfolded Lady Justice can be used for oppression. --Lambiam 07:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, that mostly explains. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for the legendary love story of Anarkali

On WP we do have this long standing article Anarkali which was probably sourced in most portions but without citing those sources. Over the years multiple edits have been made and it's bit tough to search back content for a single user (me) to identify the sources, though I have updated some of them some still remain.

For those who love historical fiction of love, task would be interesting enough. In this legendary love story from South Asian history, historical or not popular belief has been a lady named Anarkali in the life of an Emperor was also loved by his son.

I looking for help in citations needed in subsections of the section Prominent guesses about who the Anarkali was namely:

1. Jahangir ordered the body of the tomb to be wrought in gold.
2. Dara also mentions the existence of a tomb in the garden but does not give it a name.
3. According to Akbar Nama, Jahangir "became violently enamoured of the daughter of Zain Khan Koka. H.M. (Akbar) was displeased at the impropriety, but he saw that his heart was immoderately affected, he, of necessity, gave his consent
4. The translator of Akbar Nama, H. Beveridge, said Akbar objected to the marriage because the Prince was already married "to Zain Khan’s niece" (actually the daughter of paternal uncle of Zain Khan, and hence Zain Khan's cousin). Akbar objected to marrying near relations.
5. The accounts of the British travellers, and consequently the presumption of Eraly, is unlikely because Prince Daniyal's mother died in 1596, which does not match the dates inscribed on the sarcophagus.
6. According to other accounts, after Akbar's death, Salim (Jahangir) recalled Anarkali and they married. She was given a new name, Nur Jahan.
7. Nur Jehan, died in 1645, 16 years after Jahangir's death
8. Opinion of historian Ram Nath
9. The article Akbar does not give date/ years when Akbar was personally gone out for Deccan campaign, possible help for finding that

Thanks for the help.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I at least searched the article history, and there is basically zero history of sourcing to the sections you are looking for. The sources to the table are mostly as they are now, with one earlier row (sourced to Jahangir 1829 p. 26, still in bibliography) removed. There was also some pseudohistory posted then removed about Nur Jahan. (I was also about to tell you who the bulk of content was added by, but I just realized that it was you!)

There's a lot of direct quotations unsourced, so that should be an easy Google search, right? Yeah, no. Real person doesn't say what article they read, plus two slightly different blogs at least one of which is for sure algorithmically generated and mixes up sources (it has repeated or incorrectly matched names and dates, for example). However, this old blog cites DAWN (1 May 2005) possibly for the whole thing, which is something, but it's not the source of any quotation. Finally I found Ram Nath's quote "reliably" sourced to Tribune India (8 April 2000). (Nath may also be cited for related content in Lal (2001) (jstor=4410400), but I didn't read the article). And I really need to do other stuff today, so that's where I'm stopping for now. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @SamuelRiv for info and support. Over all it seems the additions previous to mine may be coming from tertiary sources, and I was trying to search in secondary RS. It did not cross my mind to make search the way you did. So it seems at least little more search work to find related RS and rewriting a little more.

Warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politicization of Supreme Courts

If you were to take a sample of the general Canadian population, I'd wager that virtually none of them could name a single Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, past or present. On the other hand, there are castaways on desert islands who nevertheless know the members of the US court because each appointment there is endlessly scrutinized by the media and - I think - because the appointments there are clearly done for political purposes. The questions I have are:

If we take these as two extremes, how would the rest of the world break down? That's maybe unanswerable, but do most countries intimately know every single one of their SC Justices (or equivalent) and their political leanings?
Even if we just stick with the US and Canada, has anyone examined why the two are so different? I mean, we have different political systems, so there's bound to be some differences, but I think we otherwise typically regard more or less equivalent government bodies in the same sort of way: the US has infamous Governors, we have infamous Premiers, etc. etc. Or, maybe I'm wrong altogether?
Is there a relationship between how political the SC appointments of a country are versus how divided the populace is politically? Like, maybe it doesn't matter so much in Canada because our geographic differences overshadow the left-right continuum?

Matt Deres (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are big questions so I'll just do #3: Yes and No (in the U.S.). Starting with the current/recent docket, there are a few notable decisions way out of line with public opinion. Of course, as recently as 2020 (a 2-Trump-seated GOP-nominated majority bench) rulings were largely in sync with the public. Simultaneously, however, it has been known for years that judicial nominations have become more polarized, as have U.S. politics in general. (The latter article is a review -- there are tons of individual articles either saying by 2016 the USSC was irrevocably partisan or was the only true beacon of moderation or was even too elitist and uniform of ideology. There's no shortage of opinions.) This is not the first time the court has become politicized -- the common comparison is the New Deal court (look, I heard it in some news podcast, and I'm not reading another article for this answer but it probably gets the jist of the point across). The polarization in the U.S. comes from many things, but it is at least in part driven by party leaders (a million poli sci papers and secondaries on this -- it's well-known). One thing that's true though is that the American public still believes the Supreme Court should be independent of politics -- they just seem to disagree on what that looks like (and maybe part of that is in how their media and social bubble portrays how the the country "ought" to be versus how it "is"?).

For #1/2, I'll say quickly, sourceless, that in theory the nine SC justices should have about as about as much power as the U.S. president. So an individual justice in theory has 1/9 the power, which is still a lot of power since the U.S. president is arguably many times more powerful/influential on the world stage than most other chief executives. If the USSC chose to wield original jurisdiction like a sledgehammer they may even supersede the domestic power of the other branches. But back to reality, the main reason the world cares about our Supreme Court is because its membership has been the central motivation of an enormous segment of the U.S. conservative movement for the last 40 years, and U.S. politics seems to be a global spectacle for many more reasons. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to question 1: In Germany, half of the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court are elected by the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the other half by the Bundesrat (representing the 16 Federal States). In each case, a two-thirds majority is required, so the major political parties have to find a consensus on the potential appointees. This results in much less polarization than in the USA, therefore to much less media attention. The politically interested part of the general population might know perhaps the name of the president of the court, but certainly not all the members. --Morinox (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that Germany (and apparently France and the UK) have over the U.S. in federal judicial appointments: mandatory retirement age, and (I don't know if this is in theory possible in Europe still, because we didn't think it was true in the U.S. until they did it) the other branches of U.S. government can simply not appoint/confirm judges for as long as they like, if nobody has full control. Those factors have played a major role in how the parties have strategized court appointments. But to compare the effectiveness and independence of the highest courts in Germany, France, and the U.S., there's a really interesting examination in Brouard and Honnige 2017 (no free link, but Wiley's in the Library). The main takeaway is that the USSC, despite having the appearance of being a big deal in the U.S., is in reality about as influential on the political sphere as the German or French S.C.. All such courts fluctuate in terms of influence, however, in reflection of the effectiveness of the other branches of government. Germany had the most complex inter-body interaction. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a relatively new thing (2009), replacing the law lords as the highest court of appeal. The appointments to the court are non-political so far, although governments can find their judgments hard to cope with - see R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, referred to by one member of the current government as a "constitutional coup". The only political control on appointments to the court is that the Lord Chancellor has a right of veto on proposed appointments prepared by an independent selection commission, although they can only use that right for one suggested appointee. Another important difference to SCOTUS is that there is mandatory retirement age of 75 years (in common with all UK judges - recently increased from 70). Mikenorton (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible for a decision at any level of government to be "apolitical". The term "apolitical" only ever meant "agrees with my politics". Either the judges in question are expected to make decisions you agree with, or not. The Supreme Court has always been a political body, and anyone that tells you differently is just revealing what they believe to be the "correct" decisions for the court to make, and only that the current court doesn't decide in that direction. --Jayron 32 11:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 -- Maybe, but "political" in that sense doesn't necessarily mean "overtly partisan". Back in the 1950s through 1970s, even many of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions were decided unanimously (Brown v. Board of Education) or by a wide majority (Roe v. Wade), and even in later decades, justices didn't always follow the politics of presidents who appointed them. In 2022, there's now a solid 5-justice phalanx (with Roberts as an appendage) bent on forcing a very narrowly partisan agenda (not even supported by all Republican voters) onto the United States. AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're wrong about the current state of the court, I only take exception at the assertion that decisions that were made unanimously or with large majorities were apolitical. They are an organ of the government; by definition they are political. Whether you consider their actions to be political or not is only a reflection on how much their actions agree with your own politics. --Jayron 32 18:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to use the word "political" to obscure the difference between the fact that there are losers and winners from just about every decision of every court, vs. the fact the U.S. Supreme Court is currently dominated by a cadre of self-conscious ideologues who are trying to impose on the United States a religious and partisan political agenda only supported by a definite minority of U.S. citizens, then I don't see what purpose that serves... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make decisions based on popular opinion. They base their decisions on existing law and the Constitution. If “We, The People” don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, our remedy is to elect legislators who pass new laws (or, if necessary, to amend the Constitution). Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Who was Colonel Charles?

In 1820, Lord Thomas Cochrane, then in the employ of the Chilean Navy, allegedly sent a Lieutenant-Colonel Charles off to Saint Helena to offer Napoleon the throne of Chile. Some sources report this as fact, while our article quotes a source saying that Charles had died before the mission is said to have taken place. In any event, Napoleon was at death's door and wasn't going anywhere. So who was this Charles? Donald Serrell Thomas says that he had previously served under Sir Robert Wilson in the Egyptian campaign, but I have no other clues. Alansplodge (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the stories about getting Napoleon out of St. Helena turned out to be apocryphal. One of the more famous was that of French-born, Philadelphia banker Stephen Girard, who according to a single unverified article from the Baltimore American tried to organize an expedition to bring Napoleon to the U.S., but the story appeared many years after the events and no confirmation of the story has ever been found, making it likely apocryphal.[11]. There was also the mythically bizarre plot to send a submarine to get Napoleon off St. Helena: [12]. I can't find much information in reliable sources on any Cochrane-led plot, though the story is out there, no Lt. Col Charles shows up in what I can find, this account from 1939 seems to place Cochrane at the forefront of the apocryphal Philadelphia plot, for example. --Jayron 32 18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intense months-long battles along the lines of Verdun or Stalingrad?

Which battles were intense, months-long, and covered a small amount of territory similar to the 1916 Battle of Verdun and the 1942 Battle of Stalingrad (which was actually referred to as the Red Verdun during World War II)? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two references for Stalingrad being called a Red Verdun: https://www.nytimes.com/1942/09/05/archives/red-verdun-holds-greatest-nazi-onslaught-kept-from-advancing-by.html and https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_10.htm 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Petersburg (including the infamous Battle of the Crater)? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite on the scale of Verdun or Stalingrad, but the Battle of the Tennis Court is worth a mention. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intrigued; thanks. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Proxy wars that directly involved a superpower or semi-superpower?

Which proxy wars directly involved a superpower or at least a semi-superpower? I can think of:

Korean War, which involved the USA fighting against the USSR's proxies in the form of Communist China and North Korea
Vietnam War, which involved the USA fighting against the USSR's proxies in the form of Viet Cong and North Vietnam
Afghanistan War, which involved the USSR fighting against the USA's proxies in the form of the Muhajideen
Russo-Ukrainian War, which involves Russia (the USSR's legal successor) fighting against the USA's proxy in form of Ukraine

Which other similar cases like the ones above were there? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In MiG Alley in the Korean War, Soviet fighter pilots and U.S. fighter pilots sometimes directly fought each other, but neither side wanted to admit it publicly at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much violates the meaning of proxy war: "at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These proxy wars were proxy from the perspective of one of the superpowers, not both. Korea and Vietnam were Soviet proxy wars and Afghanistan and Ukraine were US proxy wars. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine is not a proxy of the USA. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Because it's getting a lot of military aid from the US and the West and before this invasion the US and the West have refused to rule out eventual NATO membership for Ukraine, though obviously it was not going to occur in the near future. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 20th Plot WWII casualties question

Just how much lower would WWII casualties have been had the July 20th Plot succeeded and the European part of World War II would have thus ended at least half a year earlier than it did in real life? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French male mobilization in World War II

What birth cohorts of French males were mobilized in World War II? As in, from what year to what year? For instance, were any 1890s-born French male cohorts mobilized for World War II? What about the 1900-1904 male cohorts? And the 1905-1909 male cohorts? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Pramod_1984-1] Kumar, Pramod (1984). Folk Icons and Rituals in Tribal Life. Abhinav. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-8-17017-185-0.

[1]