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.

May 25

Time of SQ321 incident

The Singapore Airlines Flight 321 article does not state the time the severe turbulence occurred, even though it does the time it landed in Bangkok.

According to http://reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-airlines-flight-makes-emergency-landing-bangkok-30-injured-thai-media-2024-05-21, "...a spokesperson for FlightRadar 24 said it was analysing data at around 0749 GMT which showed the plane tilting upwards and return to its cruising altitude over the space of a minute." Myanmar being GMT+6:30 hours would make it 14:19 (2:19 PM) local time, which isn't a likely time for breakfast. Did Reuters mean 07:49 local time?

Do we have a reliable source of the time to put in the article?

Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 06:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Singapore Airlines Flight 321, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wuxing iconography

What is the history of the pentagram and quincunx diagrams often used to represent the Chinese five phases? I raised a question about this here, and would be grateful if anyone could point me towards relevant sources. Albie's relation of misfortune (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These diagrams are a visual representation of a graph whose vertices correspond to the phases and the edges to relations between two phases. Naturally, artists designing a visual representation will prefer symmetry, especially if it reflects a conceptual symmetry. If the phases are seen as of equal importance, the only way to reflect that visually in a planar representation is by placing them as the five vertices of a regular pentagon, in which the order of one if the cycles, for example 木→火→土→金→水→木, may be preferred. This gives five pairs of phases, with each pair connected by an edge. If the relations between all pairs are represented in the diagram, resulting in the complete graph on five vertices, the other five edges form a pentagram.

Some representations assign a central position to 土, and give only the relations between the central phase and the other four phases. Then the graph is the star graph with four leaves, which is symmetrically represented by a cross.

I don't know why some texts assign a central role to 土 while others treat the five phases on an equal footing, but producing symmetric visual representations for these symmetric abstractions is probably as old as the oldest diagrammatic representations of the five phases. --Lambiam 12:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really just looking for evidence of the pentagram presentation of the graph in history. It's also possible to draw a graph over the quincunx. [1] "Graph" itself is a modern western mathematical construction, so I'm curious about whether the Chinese tradition surrounding the wuxing really saw the relationships between the phases in a similar way. Albie's relation of misfortune (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are a tool to think about patterns of relations between items. Sociologists use graphs to model social relationships, but social relationships predate graph theory by millions of years. Diagrammatic depictions that are essentially graph diagrams are not a new phenomenon. One example is the Tree-of-life diagram from the Bahir. Another is the Scutum Fidei. --Lambiam 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, but I can't apply that information beyond speculation. Albie's relation of misfortune (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a more philosophical point, the pentagram diagram seems to be motivated by the idea that the phases are on "equal footing" as you say, and therefore that the relations between them are interchangable or equivalent, so that the transition from Earth to Metal and from Water to Wood are in some way just reflections of each-other. But in the quincunx diagram, the same transitions look more distinct: an outward motion from the Center to the West, compared to a circular motion from the North to the East. I would be interested to know whether this idea of equivalence shows up in any traditional sources. From the article, I'm not sure whether this is the subject of the debate between translating wuxing as "five elements" and as "five phases." Albie's relation of misfortune (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in whether early Chinese theorists used the same verb to denote the change from one of the five phases to an adjacent one, the answer is: sometimes, depending on what their point was. I'm not really sure how to approach your question about equivalence in a more robust way, but sometimes I'm stupid, and this was never really my area of concentration. All this theory had its roots ultimately in the Zhouyi, so the earliest extant sources are commentaries on and quotations of lost commentaries on that text. Folly Mox (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, assigning a central position to 土 comes from assigning cardinal directions to the five phases, in which "earth" is assigned the direction of "center". I don't remember when any of the major developments in five phase theory took place, although I vaguely remember Liu Xin (scholar) pooularising the newer "generative mode" ordering as a natural explanation for the legitimacy of his sovereign. Folly Mox (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This news article about the pentagram in the Tsinghua bamboo strips (volume 13), which is a diagram of musical scales, quotes a musician:

“The five characters on this pentagram correspond to the Chinese traditional five basic elements, or “Wu Xing”, that is, metal, wood, water, fire and earth,” Kong said, adding that it is a musical theory that is unique to China.

I'm not convinced by this: there are many characters around the pentagram, using ancient forms he probably can't read, and they are arranged in five lines, each of which is a text that says something, not an individual character, so where is he getting this from? However, that's his claim. Card Zero (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you! Albie's relation of misfortune (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though not useful to your purpose of finding a traditional image of the wuxing, I'm afraid. I couldn't find one either. Card Zero (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if the words for the five ancient tones correspond with the Five Phases, but the words for the phases / elements themselves are not on that collection of strips (interestingly, the top three lines of characters are written upside down, as if the scribe had rotated the entire roll, or moved to the opposite side of the writing desk).

I don't remember enough about early Chinese intellectual history to say when Five Phase correspondence theory was in vogue, but I feel like it probably postdated this manuscript, which is provisionally placed in mid–Warring States, iirc, although since it was tomb-robbed we'll never have a secure date for it. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

Hua Qing minigun

This page claims that a Chinese minigun called the "Hua Qing minigun" was introduced in 2009 by Huaqing Machinery Manufacturing Company. However, neither of the two news articles it references calls it a "Hua Qing minigun." They both said that the gun was made by "Jianshe Group" and didn't list any of the specs in the article. Is the entire article just false information? Should it be deleted or something? M-Tails-P (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly seems like someone conflated some information. User:MSG17 has prodded the article, which is probably the correct course of action. Good catch, both. Folly Mox (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other language versions of this article? M-Tails-P (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did much of the Netherlands go Gregorian in 1583.0?

Including Holland. I thought they were pretty Protestant and most Protestant zones switched much later (though Holland was relatively religiously tolerant). Did they want to harmonize with Dutchophones in the much stronger Catholic Habsburg empire to the south? Or were they tolerant enough to not mind using a better calendar for secular purposes? When did they switch their movable feast dates to Catholic-style? When was the last major Protestant denomination to do so (including equivalents, I know they sometimes used Computuses that look different from Catholic but gave the same result)? Did anywhere simultaneously use Orthodox Easter and Gregorian calendar for awhile? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics.

Around 1566 the Dutch began their rebellion against Spain. King Phillip II send them an army and had some noblemen who supported the rebels executed, but things got worse. In 1568 the rebels won their first battle, traditionally seen as the start of the 80 years war. Looking for an ally, prince William of Orange, de facto leader of the Netherlands, suggested making Francis, Duke of Anjou, the youngest son of Henry II of France, sovereign of the Netherlands – without giving him too much power. He was a Catholic, but William was very much in favour of tolerant religious policies, and so was Francis. This was arranged in 1580. In 1581, the Dutch formally declared independence from Spain, deposing Phillip II as duke/count/lord of the seven provinces. Francis, following the example of France, wanted the Netherlands to switch to the Gregorian calendar. Zeeland (more Catholic), Holland and the States General (purely political reasons) accepted to keep good relation with their new ally (who, despite being Catholic, hated the Spanish too), the other provinces didn't do so right away. In 1584, Francis died at the age of 29, which was the end of the tight relation with the French. A month later, William was murdered and Dutch policies turned more hard-line. PiusImpavidus (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was the war partly a proxy war between Spain and France? The Pyrenees are a natural border, annoying to fight in, unless the mountains have minerals you can only fight over scraps before you're in the others king's main farmland, the Low Countries are better for land and sea battles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. France had its own wars, with fanatical Catholics supported by Spain and the Pope, fanatical protestants supported by England and the Dutch, whilst the French royals – several kings (brothers) in rapid succession along with their mother, queen dowager Catherine de' Medici – tried to make peace by promoting religious tolerance. France was sandwiched between Spain and the Spanish Netherlands, the Spanish Netherlands were sandwiched between France and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, so they all had their strategic interests. The supply routes from Spain to the Spanish Netherlands went either overland, through France, or overseas to Antwerp (passing within gunshot range from the Northern Dutch city of Vlissingen) or Dunkirk (depending on who controlled that city at the time).

Definitely an interesting time, with wars all over the place (often more than two sides), princes getting murdered or taken hostage, royal marriages to make alliances, quickly followed by marriages with the opposing side, religious fanatics burning each other at the stake... PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Adoption of the Gregorian calendar

@ Adoption in Catholic countries

The Dutch provinces of Brabant and Zeeland, and the States General adopted [the Gregorian calendar] on 25 December of that year; the provinces forming the Southern Netherlands (modern Belgium) except the Duchy of Brabant adopted it on 1 January 1583; the province of Holland adopted it on 12 January 1583.

@ Adoption in Protestant countries # Rest of the Dutch Republic

The remaining provinces of the Dutch Republic adopted the Gregorian calendar on 12 July 1700 (Gelderland), 12 December 1700 (Overijssel and Utrecht), 12 January 1701 (Friesland and Groningen) and 12 May 1701 (Drenthe). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchy of Brabant was a bit of a special case. Much of it was controlled by Spain. By the end of the war, it was broken up (and it still is). PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1538.0? Were they using stardates? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ".0" suffix comes from astronomical epoch dating, not in use in 1583... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

clarification.

is it correct to say that Law firm associates are retainers and not employees and that in-house legal counsels are employees? then what is really an external/outside counsel or when are they required? please clarify. Grotesquetruth (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing much to clarify. Your statements are merely a mix of the state of the matter and the implication of them. You need an external impulse if you either need more objectivity than you're allowing internally or you're trying to lever on forces for any given change of course. You may in the abstract compare with the Baltimore Bridge collapse, although that may be a little bit of a stretch.. --Askedonty (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Used in connection with legal services, a "retainer" is the fee a client pays for future legal services. There can be many reasons why someone needs legal counsel. One possible reason is that one has a plan of action but is not certain of the legality of some aspects. Another possible reason is that one is involved in a conflict that may end up in court. If one needs counsel and does not have access to in-house counsel, one needs to obtain external counsel. The in-house counsel of an organization represents the interests of that organization. Someone working for a company may have interests that are not aligned with these company interests. If they need legal counsel, they'd better seek it outside the company. --Lambiam 09:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law firm associates are employees of the law firm. In-house lawyers are employees of the company (or other organization) for which they work. An organization that needs legal services may turn either to its in-house lawyers (if it is large enough to have in-house lawyers) or to a law firm that it hires. There are a variety of reasons why an organization with in-house lawyers might use a law firm instead of, or in addition to, its in-house lawyers. For example, a project might be too big for the in-house lawyers by themselves, or the organization might need more expertise than is available in-house. A law firm typically will staff a matter with a mix of partners (who are not employees) and associates, and perhaps some lawyers with other titles. John M Baker (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali naming conventions in the US?

I was reading an excerpt from The Namesake, a book about a family of Bengali immigrants in the US, and it made me wonder how the bhalo nam vs the dak nam is usually handled when immigrating to the US. In the story, the main character's dak nam is on some of his legal documents, but on the Wikipedia page for Bengali names, it says that the bhalo nam is used on all legal documents. Was this just a decision for the sake of the story, or is this something that might actually happen? Dinsfire24 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes are made. I have seen my own name, as well as my father's name, recorded incorrectly in official documents. I suppose that in the Wikipedia article the legal documents referred to are Bangladeshi legal documents, which would normally be written in the Bengali alphabet. I'm not familiar with the story of The Namesake. Did the dak nam appear in a Bangladeshi document? Or did someone use the dak nam unofficially in the US and it somehow ended up in a US official document? It is easy to imagine confusion caused by Americans being unaware of the existence of non-US naming customs – and new immigrants being unaware of the general American unawareness of other cultures. --Lambiam 16:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I believe it was on a US official document, so your assessment is likely correct. Dinsfire24 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the one whose main character is named for Nikolai Gogol? (I saw the movie years ago, at a Dravidian friend's suggestion.) —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it was. What did you think of the movie? Dinsfire24 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

US lawsuits

Is there a lawsuit (judged, not settled out-of-court) for all 2,550 possible concatenations of US states and USA? (100 lawsuits named United States v./vs. state or vice versa, 2,450 named state vs state). Have even half of them happened yet? Have all 13x12+26 concatenations of the Original 13 and the US happened yet? Is DC allowed to sue the US or a state or vice versa? Did US courts ever decide a suit between sovereign countries? Has New York City ever sued New York State or vice versa? What would the short form name be if a government sues the same government more than once in a year? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the U.S. Constitution (Article 3, Section 2), the Supreme court has "original jurisdiction" over certain types of cases "in which a state shall be a party", including "controversies between two or more states". For a speciific case, see New Jersey v. New York. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that there haven't been 2,450 lawsuits of this type between all theoretical permutations (what reason would Idaho have to sue Florida??), but there has been more than one lawsuit over the years between certain specific pairs of states (see New York v. New Jersey (2023) etc). AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The few dozen in the category do seem to be overwhelmingly regional spats like border disputes though there is a Texas v. New Jersey and Texas v. Pennsylvania. Do any pairs sharing a land border not have lawsuits both ways yet? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re city vs state, google returns: City of New York v. State of New York. I'd imagine there are more. -- Avocado (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was tried in a New York state court under state law. I don't know if all states allow such suits. AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NY Trump trial

Based on reading about this trial, I gather that in NY, falsifying business records for the hell of it (not in furtherance of another crime) is a misdemeanor, but falsifying them in furtherance of another crime (the "object offense") is a felony. Let's assume the NY DOJ doesn't put on gazillion dollar media spectacle trials to pursue people for misdemeanors. They are trying Trump for falsifying records for purposes of breaking election law. The thing is, the election law in question is both a federal law (they can't try him for it in NY state court) and very very complicated. And the election law part of this is not in Trump's NY indictment. I haven't seen the jury instructions so maybe they shed some light on this issue. What I'm wondering is, assuming the NY jury returns a conviction, does that only establish a misdemeanor, with a separate federal trial on the election law vio to bump the NY charge up to a felony? Or are they supposed to say he did it for another crime without having to establish that whatever he was trying to do was actually a crime? I haven't seen any press coverage saying this outright, but there is a fair amount (including from anti-Trump writers) skeptical of the process.

In general, if there is a two-element crime, do you usually have to prove both elements in the same trial, or can you have a separate trial for each element? The first element (falsification) is a criminal charge in its own right, so it's a legitimate (misdemeanor) criminal trial, but the second element (furtherance of another offense) seems to be partly in limbo.

I'm not seeking legal advice, Trump can pay his own lawyers and IANAL. Thanks. (It's also possible that I have this story at least partially wrong, due to unwittingly reading propaganda). 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:98EB (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a US lawyer so can't comment on the specifics, but having an offence dependent on the commission of another offence that hasn't been charged, even an offence under the laws of a different jurisdiction, is not unusual. Money laundering offences will often work like this, for instance: you can launder in jurisdiction 1 the proceeds of a crime committed in jurisdiction 2 (e.g. you can commit a fraud in Paris and then launder the proceeds through a bank in London), and you can be tried for the money laundering in jurisdiction 1 regardless of whether there has been or will be a prosecution in jurisdiction 2 for the underlying crime. The point is that even if you can only be tried in a particular jurisdiction for a particular crime, that doesn't stop the prosecuting authorities of another jurisdiction establishing as a fact that you have committed that crime in a prosecution for another crime. I suspect that that is similar to how the particular law works here, as everything I have read says that he is on trial for the felony version of the offence charged in New York. Proteus (Talk) 10:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there have been some updates today mentioning the NY election law and the jury instructions. Good point about money laundering and thanks for that info. If Trump is convicted it will be interesting to see how the appeals play out. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:98EB (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a lawyer; but I have followed the CNN cover, and did read the judges instructions (which seemligly by NY law are open to read for the whole world, except for those 12 people (+ their potential replacements) to which the instructions are directed...). The judge very explicitly explained that a "guilty" verdict should be appropriate if and only if the jury finds that "beyond a reasonable doubt" Trump has comitted or knowingly induced others to falsify business records and had done so with the intention to commit or cover (another) crime. Thus, as far as I understand the instructions, if the jury should find Trump guilty of just the falsification (which in itself just would be a misdemenour), but not with the aforementioned intent, then their verdict should be "not guilty". In other words, the prosecution claimed that Trump is guilty of the combined two element crime, and the jury should decide on whether he was guilty as accused, not on whether he in fact is guilty of something else—and just falsifying the records but without the intent to commit or cover a crimee indeed is considered as "something else". (On the other hand, they may be declare him guilty of the combined crime on some of the 34 charges, but not guilty on others.) Was this clear?

The other question IMHO is really interesting; but it partly may be based on a misunderstanding. The prosecution has offered three "theories" for what crimes Trump intended to commit or cover up. As far as I understand, only one of them concerns the federal election law. One of the others concerns breaking the (state) taxation laws in New York. The third concerns other book-keeping crimes. By the judge's instruction, if the jury finds that Trump intended to commit or cover any one of these three offenses, then the second part of the prerequisites for a "guilty" verdict indeed is fulfilled. Now, as far as I followed the CNN summaries, the prosecution indeed stressed the election law offenses they claimed Trump has committed; but the other two possibilities still are available and could be considered in the jury's deliberation. (Still, if they do declare Trump guilty on some or all charges, then I personally suspect that this point may be used as one of the grounds for an appeal. However, since this is just a speculation by a non-lawyer, my suspicion isn't a proper part of an answer to your question.) JoergenB (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump can pay his own lawyers, but will he? —Tamfang (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags at presidential inaugurations: the Hawaiian anomaly

At US presidential inaugurations, five national flags are hung vertically at the Capitol: a 50-star flag in the center, flanked to either side by the first flag representing the new president's state of residence, flanked on the ends by two 13-star Betsy Ross flags. If the president is from one of the 13 colonies, their "state flag" uses the Hopkinson-style row-and-column arrangement, preventing a clash with the Betsy Ross's star circle. But what happens when the new president is from Hawaii? (And no, Obama doesn't count – he was an Illinoisan for this purpose.) Would there be three identical 50-star flags flanked by two Betsy Rosses? Or would they loop back to using 13-star Hopkinson flags to break things up? Or would they simply use three flags instead of five? Or perhaps Betsy-50-Betsy-50-Betsy, or 50-Betsy-50-Betsy-50? 71.126.56.57 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to wait and see. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Bevan and Tredegarisation

Aneurin Bevan is often quoted as saying "All I am doing is extending to the entire population of Britain the benefits we had in Tredegar for a generation or more. We are going to Tredegar-ise you." but I have never seen a precise citation. According to the South Wales Argus 5th July 2018 "Where and when he said this, appears lost in the mists of 20th Century political time. Bevan's most recently published biographer Nick Thomas-Symonds did not include it in his 2014 book Nye: The Political Life of Aneurin Bevan because he could not locate its source." I can't find it in Michael Foot or John Campbell either. Can anyone here nail it down? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Bevan, mastermind of the NHS said, ‘There was a complete health service in Swindon. All we had to do was expand it to the country.'[2]

Possibly he found it a useful quote to butter up whichever locality he was currently speaking to? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would depend on the locality's view of Tredegar. Or if they had ever even heard of it... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was suggesting he used the quote anywhere, but changed the name to Tredegar/Swindon/wherever he was speaking, to imply that they had inspired the NHS. I believe there were local health schemes at many places around the country, possibly started or assisted by big employers. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for Swindon are not better than (i.e. just as bad as) those for Tredegar. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan had very specific reasons to refer to Tredegar. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and that reference indeed contained the (alleged) quote "we will Tredegar-ise you" - but it seemed a bit anecdotical IMHO. JoergenB (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, there is nothing that I have been able to find that says when he said it, where, or to whom. I have found a suggestion that it was from a film in the 70s or 80s. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument made only to illustrate a point

Hello, What is the name of an argument that is made purely to illustrate a point about a larger situation? For example, if someone were to argue that America is a pluralist (interest-group-centered) democracy, not because they think that it actually is but because they want to call attention to/promote their view of the larger situation, which is the outsize influence of interest groups in America. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what you're doing with this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing I could find is "bad-faith argument," but that's not specific to what I'm saying.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I call making an argument solely because one thinks it will carry weight with someone, without believing in its factualness or holding the values associated with it, concern trolling, and if it's appealing specifically to some prejudice, demagoguery. OTOH, designating an argument as tentative and provisional because you intend to deboonk it later is called "playing Devil's advocate" and is a valid tactic. Aecho6Ee (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has a much more restricted definition of the verb concern troll, being an online activity with a disruptive purpose. --Lambiam 06:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary as our ally. The notion of a provisional process seems to be hinting at the until now rather undefined "attention-getter" required at the attention step in Monroe's motivated sequence. --Askedonty (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Truthiness and alternative facts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument. DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought experiment. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 11:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum is related. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, what? Isn't the term just rhetoric? Remsense诉 12:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very generic term. Parallelism, for example, is a very common rhetorical device that has nothing to do with the essentially dishonest situation sketched in the question. --Lambiam 15:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've intentionally been more than a bit imprecise. In my day to day lexicon, I would actually refer to what the OP describes simply as a "rhetorical argument", i.e. that it serves only metatextual ends in the discourse and the literal meaning of the argument itself doesn't matter. Do other people say this? I think I extended it from the common "rhetorical question" idiom but that seems reasonable enough. Remsense诉 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just exempli gratia? Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question and example is in error. You've defined elite theory, not a pluralist democracy. If an outsized interest group has major influence, that's what we call an "elite democracy", which is exactly what the US has now. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

the term "postmodernism" in non-academic discourse

Hi all,

I've been doing some work on the postmodernism article, and I believe that it needs a section on how such a poorly defined term from art criticism made its way into mainstream cultural and political discourse. Can anyone point me to any good sources? Or just suggestions of where/how best to find high-quality sources on this kind of thing?

Thanks! Patrick (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of many people who were somewhat aware of developments in certain corners of U.S. academia, but not directly involved, it was a part of a wave of French-derived theories mainly imported from France starting in the 1970s (see Foucault, Kristeva, Derrida, Lyotard, Lacan, Irigaray, ad nauseam) which had little concern for facts or truth, and in some manifestations had a strong ultra-relativist hostility to the very idea of truth (see strong programme, constructivism, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" etc etc). The general reputation of such "theory" (a word sometimes pronounced with reverence in English literature departments, but with contempt by academics of a more scientific orientation) was not helped when Paul de Man turned out to have Nazi connections. For a relatively early book partly about such "theory", see Higher Superstition. Even people without any great knowledge of postmodernism/deconstructionism have sometimes wondered what the heck the value is of an academic field which hovers on the boundary of rejecting the concept of truth (and sometimes crosses over the boundary). AnonMoos (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered if there was a deeper, perhaps coincidental connection with Asian philosophical traditions. There are arcane philosophical ideas about rejecting the concept of truth that can be traced to Hindu and Buddhist teachings, particularly when it comes to understanding emptiness. Because these old ideas have religious patinas, they are considered obscure and out of reach for most people. It almost seemed like Derrida and others were giving people a taste of this, very much in line with countercultural interpretations that perceived differences in assumed and given truths, experienced and lived truths, and learned or revealed truth, such as the kind popular in Christianity. So maybe the value is in realizing that Derrida and others, who in all likelihood were atheists and quite secular, had unknowingly crossed over into religion. Just my take. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My two cents are that postmodernism is a good idea for sciences which do not have a paradigm, and a bad idea for sciences which do. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though my politics are likely very different than AnonMoos, and lean towards the progressively liberal, I tend to agree with conservatives that postmodernism overall was bad for academia. I only say this because I saw the impact it had in the university up close and personal, and I knew then it was nonsense just as I do now. That is not to say that nonsense doesn't have a time and place, which is what you are getting at in some respects with your reply. Personally, I think a certain kind of nonsense makes for some good art, like comedy, or even certain kinds of music such as aleatoric music. And like I said above, it may even have a reduced role in philosophy and religion. But for academia as a whole, it's hard to see how it was useful, since it served more to confuse students than to enlighten them. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the place to debate the issue at any length, but I actually consider myself somewhat "left" (certainly in terms of whom I'm likely to vote for in U.S. elections), but a fact- and truth-respecting Enlightenment-influenced reasoned leftist, who's unlikely to be swayed by jargon buzzwords or trendy slogans of the moment, if they don't have substance behind them. Some forms of Buddhism analyze the world in terms of "things true", "things false", "things true and false", and "things neither true nor false" (and each of these four can then be negated as a whole), and as a dogmatic religion this may not be any worse than any number of other dogmatic religions, but I don't see how it's likely to advance our understanding of either literature or scientific facts about the universe. It's been pointed out a number of times, that postmodernist/deconstructionist apathy toward truth is overall compatible with global-warming denialism (may have even been part of the foundations of global-warming denialism in some respects), and the only real reason why postmodernists/deconstructionists aren't climate-deniers is pure personal preference... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for the input. My question, however, still stands (which is just to say that I remain confused). What I would like to document for the article is how the thought of a variety of notoriously difficult French thinkers in the second part of the 20th century came to attain such an outsized importance in popular discourse. People who have not even heard of the figures mentioned above believe that science, culture, and society are genuinely threatened by the fringe views held by a small number of professors of the humanities. This seems to me quite unusual and in need of explanation. Patrick (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who whip up a frenzy of righteous indignation on various media about basically anything not fitting the ideal way they wish to see the world framed. What draws their ire can be a library holding a book acknowledging that humans too have bodily functions, or a teacher admitting to their class that the Emancipation Proclamation did not totally erase the problems of formerly enslaved people (or even merely referring to them as "enslaved people"). The idea is that the world is ideal, or rather would be ideal except for a growing legion of social-justice warriors and intellectuals out of touch with reality, controlled by a sinister elite with a nefarious secret plot. They suggest forcefully that if not stopped this will upend everything we hold dear. It gains them a following of easily frightened people and helps to maintain the status quo.

Specifically for postmodernism in academia, because the writings of the stars in the field were so abstruse, it was easy to fake it and not get caught (not only for Sokal), which appeared a more inviting road to upcoming academics in a publish or perish environment than to call out the Emperor's New Clothes of a local star. IMO the criticism of scientific certainty as being a cocky pseudo-certainty is sometimes justified; both sides of the debate can go overboard. See also Science wars. --Lambiam 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not implausible, but Wikipedia can't denounce something as a cynically deployed moral panic without much stronger sourcing than I think we are going to find.

Since most of the major texts and figures are more than 30 years old, I was hoping to find a non-polemical account of how these various thinkers, most of whom did not use the term "postmodern", were lumped together under that heading and injected into the popular imagination. For, as is attested by this very thread, it continues to generate a strong evaluative response well-outside the seminar room.

(Also, NB, Many of the criticisms mentioned here are documented at criticism of postmodernism, which another editor broke off into a child page due to its considerable length.) Patrick (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I'm familiar with the history of climate denial, and I don't see any direct connection between the architects of science denial and postmodernism, so I wonder if what you are describing is just a coincidence. I do see what you are saying when it comes to people like Jean-François Lyotard and his unusual admonition against explanatory theories and consensus, which he calls an "outmoded and suspect value", as this comes off as deeply anti-science and, to my mind, even anti-democratic, which is odd to me, because he is described as anti-authoritarian. This is one of the many reasons I dislike postmodernism; it is self-contradictory, paradoxical, and has little to no explanatory or predictive value. In some respects, it is a natural outgrowth of the counterculture of the 1960s, but in others, it just devolves into navel-gazing. I was also surprised to discover that there are writers who have drawn parallels between Buddhist notions of emptiness and postmodernism, which I thought was my own idea. It wasn't. As for the OPs question, it's a good one and it's something I still don't know the answer to here. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick_Welsh -- In the case of Judith Butler, the largely unfalsifiable "fringe views held by a small number of professors of the humanities" have had a very deep influence on a number of western nations over the past ten or a dozen years, many would say for the worse, leading to unfair competition in girls' and women's sports, biologically male sex offenders being placed into women's prisons, sterilization of children for reasons that the Cass Review found to be usually not based on solid science, etc. etc. Political turmoil over gender ideology controversies almost certainly accelerated the departure from office of the last two First Ministers of Scotland (Humza Yousaf and especially Nicola Sturgeon), though not the only reason, while the Green Parties in the UK (different organizations in England & Wales and in Scotland), have now adopted a rigid Stalinist attitude toward gender ideology, rapidly expelling from the party anyone who dares to question it in any way (they seem to be a lot more concerned about that than about environmental and ecological issues these days). In the United States, roughly two dozen states have passed anti-gender-ideology laws while a smaller number have passed pro-gender-ideology laws, and there's a perpetual flood of lawsuits flying in all directions. I bet a lot of people really wish that Judith Butler was a fringe figure without much influence outside academia, but that's not the case... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t say that I agree with this assessment, as most of it has been debunked as conservative fearmongering; I also don’t see the direct connection between gender issues and postmodernism. I first learned about this topic in the context of anthropology, so I think it’s been politicized by bad actors, many of whom have connections to religious interest groups. For me personally, this has always been an issue related to civil and human rights. Opponents exemplify the maxim: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." Somehow, I think issues related to postmodernism are being thrown into this mix unnecessarily, often to muddy the waters. Even our article on gender equality starts off in the early 15th century. Further, the fact that traditional gender roles are historically enforced by society doesn't really have anything to do with postmodernism. More interesting is how traditional gender roles, when looked at with a historical microscope, tend to fluctuate greatly over time and culture. My understanding is that this means that traditional gender roles don't actually exist, they are artificially imposed, such as forcing boys to wear dresses as children (quite common until recently) and dressing girls in blue clothing (now pink in the modern era). Pink was once considered more "masculine" than blue, etc. One thing that drove this point home to me the other day was a discussion on NPR where one of the participants said, and I loosely paraphrase, "until recently, our only acceptable career choice as women was to be mothers". It's a heavy statement that has a great deal behind it. Although not in any way equal or equivalent, I think men have faced a similar problem. Until recently, men were shaped as warmongers; they either had to go to war on the battlefield, go to war in the courtroom, go to war in the boardroom, or go to war on the natural world (science). So what women are going through, men are also experiencing in different ways, but obviously from a position of power. This isn't a kind of postmodernism, nor is it saying that there's no objective truth. It's just an observation that societal truth changes over time and place. As for your comment about environmental and ecological issues, I have noticed more people engaging in interdisciplinary discourse in those two fields, and I wonder if this comes off as "postmodern" to critics. About a month ago, I watched an hour long webinar about mitigating climate change in Hawaii, and while it was very good and run by two leading experts on the subject from the University of Hawaii, one from the social sciences and one from the hard sciences, some of the things the social science representative said were a bit fuzzy and postmodern-like, but I think their intention was rooted in the idea of inclusion: climate change will impact everyone in every field, so we need to have a big tent. I could see conservative critics hating on this, but it makes a lot of sense if you consider that nobody is safe and everybody will have to do their part. My guess is that this POV is very much at odds with conservatism, as that kind of ideology is rooted in Us vs. Them polemics, and depends on upholding the status quo, which means continuing to use oil and not to change the way we do things, and to keep society stratified, segmented, and segregated by class, race, gender, etc. This is why I think most criticisms of postmodernism might not be criticisms of postmodernism at all, but rather reactionary attempts to stay the course and prevent progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to y'all for your attention to my query! I do not see this going anywhere productive, however, and I am unfollowing. Please tag me or, better yet, post to the discussion page with any suggestions of good sources.

All best, Patrick (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. Matt Deres (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry, I only just now looked at your article. It already uses Connor's The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism which answers your question in spades. It notes that Daniel Bell, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Charles Jencks, and Ihab Hassan were working on the topic simultaneously in the 1970s and 1980s, but it wasn't until the 80s that Fredric Jameson synthesized (in part) the disparate work into a cohesive whole, at which point it was anthologized in the 1990s, and became transformed into a kind of pseudo-hypothesis (my words) in the humanities, forming the first notions of what became known as postmodern theory in academia, followed by work by Hans Bertens and John Frow. By the late 1990s, it transformed into a kind of philosophy and became associated with "postcolonialism, multiculturalism and identity politics", which was a newer formulation. Connor notes that in 1970, it focused on postmodernist literature; in 1980, it was postmodern architecture; while by 1990 with the fall of the Soviet Union, it became a discussion of cultural postmodernism. Connor argues that by the 2000s, it had transformed into discussions of legal, religious, and performance postmodernism. There is some indication in the book that Jean Baudrillard may have had a lot to do with introducing the discussion into academia, but he famously distanced himself from postmodernism. Frankly, I find the entire topic confusing and obfuscatory, so this will be my last comment on it. Just looking at Connor's book for ten minutes made me remember why I dislike this subject so much. It's just nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real commonality between "gender equality" and "gender ideology", except for a word of six letters. Some gender ideology fanatics are among the strictest in insisting on basically traditional gender roles -- if a child (even far younger than puberty) shows any non-traditional gender-role characteristics, then the extremists will insist the child is "trans". (So much for tomboys, etc.) For example, Susie Green's son liked wearing tutus and playing with girls' toys, and his father was uncomfortable with that behavior, so that was apparently pretty much it, from anything that she's ever said publicly -- he was dragged off to Thailand and castrated. Our Susie Green article is mealy-mouthed when it says she "unexpectedly" resigned -- she had received severe criticism from a number of sources, and the organization Mermaids which she dominated for years was placed under a legal inquiry a week after she resigned, and her boasting TED Talk mysteriously disappeared off of Youtube a month or two later, but you won't find any of that out from her Wikipedia article. Also, gay and lesbian advocates never displayed the personal vindictiveness that "transactivists" or "TRAs" do. Gays and lesbians singled out a few prominent figures like Anita Bryant and Rick Santorum, while TRAs try to destroy the careers or lives of a large number of people who dare to dissent from gender ideology, often using thuggish tactics of intimidation and harassment, and often seemingly motivated by misogyny in singling out women for heavier retribution than men. Gays and lesbians also never had any particular objections to heterosexuals meeting together for relevant purposes (such as in singles bars), while TRAs have devoted great effort to making it almost impossible for lesbians to publicly meet together in some regions and countries (see the Tickle v. Giggle lawsuit, whose only amusing feature is its name, etc etc). Much of lesbian life is now furtive and underground in those areas, while back in the 1990s it was open and free. A great advancement for "progressivism", I'm sure! AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel culture and deplatforming were invented by the right wing and are touchstones of conservatism, not the left. It was used for decades to ostracize anarchists, socialists, communists, peace and anti-war advocates, homosexuals, libertines, labor rights advocates, and anyone remotely perceived as a threat to capitalism, the military industrial complex, and the government. This changed in the 1960s and 1970s, as the right wing openly opposed progress such as civil rights and desegregation, aligning and identifying themselves as regressives, and engaging and supporting the criminal Nixon administration which was pardoned for its crimes. This led the right to create their own conservative counterculture, in the spirit of the Powell memo and the Koch network, and wage a campaign of conservative infiltration of the media and academia over about four decades, all the while claiming there was a "liberal media bias" and "liberal bent" to academia; once again showing that every accusation was, in fact, a confession. In response to this open opposition to democracy, obstructionism, and authoritarian impulse, progressives began to fight back. The right wing revised history (as they always do), to make it seem like the left invented cancel culture and deplatforming in the 2000s, when the right had been using those tactics for a century. Once again, the old conservative adage applies: "do as we say, not as we do". Or as I like to say, "watch what they do, not what they say". All this constant talk of "electoral fraud" and "irregularities" on the right, only to discover that it was the right who was trying to overturn the election. This is what conservatism looks like. Rank hypocrisy, disinformation, and lies. Every accusation is a confession. This is post-truth politics, and if it's postmodern, it's an invention of the right, not the left. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I'm not right-wing, so most of your tirade whooshes right by me. In any case, whether I'm more right than wrong, or more wrong than right, either way, it's simply not working now (assuming that it ever did work) to try to paste a smiley face on the current situation and claim that everything connected with gender ideology is just fine and dandy except for a few complaining "right-wingers"[sic]. That won't accomplish anything for Scott Wiener or anyone else at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yes, that's my point. "Gender ideology" is a manufactured controversy and culture war spread by the right. I get that you don't see it that way, but when you painstakingly trace it back, the majority of the talking points come from billionaire-backed, right-wing foundations working in partnership with Christian Nationalist-oriented interest groups, who perceive gender fluidity, or the notions thereof, as an "attack" on Christian values. The last time I looked into this, they went to great lengths to hide the connections through dark money slush-funds and front groups. And I think it's perfectly reasonable that you might not be aware of this subterfuge, as numerous, well-known left of center celebrities have been fooled into thinking otherwise. You should look a little closer at the connections in red states where the masks have accidentally come off. Florida is a well known example. The Florida Parental Rights in Education Act was originally introduced by Dennis Baxley, who was on the Steering Council of the Conservative Baptist Network, which is connected to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL). The NACL uses the bill mill model of the Koch-connected American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to push Christian nationalism. The artificial culture war talking point of gender ideology is one of many ways that they introduce Christian nationalism into law to undermine democratic norms and freedoms. They are working towards establishing the US as a Christian theocracy, and this is one of their incrementalist approaches. The Kochs and other right-wing foundations may not be as religious as they are, but they work together to strengthen the power of oligarchs, corporations, and the state, such that individuals (in this case gay people) have less rights, which in turn, promotes the heteronormative paradigm of Christian nationalism. This kind of model of overreach can then be used in all other like-minded legislation in their agenda, from prohibiting the discussion of the environment or climate change within state government, to putting the breaks on renewable energy transitional models. All of these things, while vastly different on the outside, are intimately connected. The Kochs and these other foundations are all heavily invested in oil production, that's how they make their money. They can't just come out and say "pass a bill to make oil production and usage mandatory", so they work around on the outside margins, to test their legislation out on marginalized people first. Another good example is their well-funded backlash to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). You might think this has everything to do with racism, but once again, that's the going after marginalized people angle to test their strategy. In reality, the attack on DEI has to do with going after equity, which impacts oil producers because there are aspects of fossil fuel divestment connected to it. Once again, all of these things come back to oil. Things are just not what they appear to be. There's three agendas at work, the overarching agenda of the oil, chemical, and extraction industries, and their so-called "side-gigs", which keep people distracted from where their money is going and what they are doing with it. Christian nationalists attacking gender ideology is one of these side-gigs. About a year or so ago, I spent an entire day tracing it all back to these foundations. None of this is grassroots based, or originating in popular movements. In fact, every grassroots movement that comes forward and says they are, have been uncovered as part of this well-oiled machine, with Moms for Liberty one of the most notable. And in case you haven't figured it out by now, if a group has "liberty" or "freedom" in its name, they are often a right-wing front group for the Koch network. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So… it’s all a conspiracy by big oil? Please, spare me. We hear enough conspiracy crap from the right… we don’t need to hear it from the left. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is all connected to big oil, but big oil has shared interests with Christian nationalists. Some conspiracies are very real. The Koch network and the Council for National Policy are both well-known conspiracies working out in the open. This has been covered extensively by historians of science and investigative journalists like Naomi Oreskes and Jane Mayer. Sometimes the truth is too difficult for people to believe, which is why people like yourself prefer to believe in fantasies. You're in good company, as that's true for most people. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the Federalist Society to the list. (See also Leonard Leo.) For a more complete list, see the sections Think tanks and Other organizations of Template:Conservatism US. Not all are equally conspirational, but they are very connected through personal unions, and the goals of several as they are actually scheming are not quite as democratic as their publicly professed aims. --Lambiam 07:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listing all those people and organizations certainly make appear obsessions with conspiracies so obviously undeniably founded. It particularly quickly contributes to proving your point that everything worrying has been initially concocted by right-wingers with access to a lot of money and the means of more or less individually controlling the diffusion of their very personal and very wrong theories. That's forgetting that all right-wingers may have not been created equal just like leftist scholars identifying themselves as authorities regarding the roots of climate scepticism because they are primarly able to reiterate the discourses that showed the evilness of the tobacco industries. Then one who owns money and doesn't know where that only comes from and sometimes reads one or the other pieces of what's left of the press will easily decide that endorsing the role of a leftist billionaire would make of him at this point in history merely a follower. So he knows how to make followers but I'm sorry to say, those might not be be only the flock that will be rallying around his banner. He's also rallying the adequate opposition. But yes in my opinion, whatever it has to be considered morally or sociogically, that's also in all probably a very postmodern phenomenon. For example rallying against climate change was a move already possible in '65, though maybe not realistically in the US. Established hippies I met as late as fifteen or eighteen years later were still engaging in touristic activities, few good will people being able of realistically rejecting rationalism. Postmodernism transfers may have been the disguise of prudent attempts to finally start to be acting realistically, prudent because everybody has to be cautious to not definitively spoil their chances at a comfortable fucking session some time to begin with. --Askedonty (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was kind of what I was getting at, based on what AnonMoos wrote up above. We are told via conventional wisdom that the phenomenon of postmodernism originally came of out Marxist and leftist-counterculture, and by extension, centrists and conservatives objected to its embrace by the social sciences and the humanities and the loss of objectivity (to whatever extent that is even true). But when we look really closely at this, we see that it wasn't the left that embraced this kind of postmodernism, it was the right; conservatives, not liberals, gave birth to the very concept of doubting the truth, which later morphed into climate denial, alternative facts, COVID-denial, and post-truth Trumpism. But somehow the left is to blame for this? It doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in '65, climate denial was not even identifiable. For example my mother's ambition to be equal to men which was a highly considered goal amongst most men around us and most of the kids I had to play toy car with implied she was to own any fitting gas guzzler like the guy next door so soon as was feasible. So she was rather right-wing most of the time: the left were too many intellectuals. Among her motivations collectivism implied faring bus, and she was outraged at society imposing to the disabled them waiting for busses. So after she was used having her own cars and the left was explicitly busy focusing on the disabled because nobody else needed assistance anymore, she ceased being very much an ardent no-leftwinger. In a way in the end I would say, with perseverance she more or less managed to get money alloted by the right, with the left not bothering to interfere. After which she could afford growing leftist, make black people friends if she could even though them not in subservient roles etc. As with a too early climate denial charge for example truth if that ever can be determined would have to be gotten lost on the way. She simply would have been frightened under one different light. A frequent criticism regarding the left monopolizing ownership of truth relates to the denial problem including a dimension related to the initiative sequence - as in a present struggle - and also, representativity. The left does not divide itself on subjects as readily identifiable like the right would because their base just does not need, and is not required to consider the current contentious points in deep like those on other side would; a matter of the initiative sequence. Behind would have to be studied the relevant specific doctrines, it's really not interesting to get blinded by the effects after someone managed to turn the lights to their's own advantage. --Askedonty (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to belatedly invoke WP:SOAPBOX at this point, and WP:NOTFORUM. Before somebody more influential than me does, and perhaps questions the usefulness of the ref desks. Card Zero (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

First documented first documented Anglo Saxon woman

Who was the first named Anglo Saxon woman in history? 2601:1C0:8382:2680:5911:A6EE:7C7A:B66A (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of history? Rowena probably didn't exist, but if she did, she did it in the 5th century. Acha of Deira is a good option. Bertha of Kent was slightly older, but Frankish. Card Zero (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's going to be possible to name the very earliest, unless Rowena was real, since in early Anglo-Saxon history dates of death of women are usually unknown and dates of birth always are. Here are two more possibilities though. Bede tells us that in 604 the kingdom of Essex was being ruled by Sæberht, son of Ricula, who was sister of King Æthelberht of Kent. Ricula must certainly have been a 6th-century woman then, maybe stretching into 7th. The Historia Brittonum mentions a wife of Æthelfrith of Bernicia called Bebba, after whom Bamburgh is named. --Antiquary (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petroglyph sites

Are there any major (especially ancient near East) rock art locations not included here? Temerarius (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could cross-reference with this list of rock art sites in Turkey, and repeat for other counties of interest, and again for "carving", and decide which are notable (for instance "earliest horse figures in Anatolia"), but it's a lot of work, especially establishing what commons doesn't have. I'm interested in the subject and I wish I knew site names, but I'm afraid I don't. Card Zero (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

". . . a lot of work" indeed. I contemplated the query earlier, but concluded that giving a meaningful answer to it would require an effort equivalent to at least several weeks of academic study. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love tragic stories in Bengali culture and folklore

Is there such famous or well-known love tragic stories in Bengali culture like how in Punjabi culture, they have Heer Ranjha, Saasi Punnun, Sohni Mahiwal and Mirza Sahiban? Donmust90 Donmust90 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

Is the Ruqayya bint Husayn tomb in Damascus or Cairo??

Editor User:Al Shaykh Al Kasuri decided that the shrine in Damascus: Al-Amara Mosque which used to be called Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque belongs to unknown person and the real tomb is in Cairo: Mashhad of Sayyida Ruqayya. And they changed the article to reflect that. I don't know much about the topic but I assumed vandalism and reverted their edits once but they made the changes again.
Is there someone with knowledge about the topic? Are the sources cited actually trustworthy? Is there consensus around the issue between political scholars of Islam? I would appreciate help in this manner. Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are discussing this here instead of the talk page of Al-Amara Mosque. Your claim that Al Shaykh Al Kasuri decided that the shrine in Damascus: Al-Amara Mosque which used to be called Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque belongs to unknown person and the real tomb is in Cairo is completely incorrect. Nowhere I have said that the remains of Ruqayya bint Husayn are in Cairo? The Mashhad of Sayyida Ruqayya in Cairo is supposedly of Ruqayya bint Ali, not of bint Husayn. I decided nothing, the encyclopedic sources (Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam, The Great Islamic Encyclopaedia, the Encyclopaedia of Husayn) did! The information on the al-Amara Mosque is taken from Ruqayya bint Husayn itself! If you believe these sources are not reliable, then why don't you add any reliable sources for this article? My revised version is clearly far better than the previous one which was based only on one source, Mailviruskid.tripod which is clearly not WP:RS. Can you elaborate on how my sources are unreliable and how the previous version was better? Al Shaykh Al Kasuri (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about this topic and I don't have time to research it right now. I posted here hoping that someone can give their more informed opinion into the topic. No need to get defensive. I appreciate the extra details you provided here. I hope someone else can chime in and we can get a consensus on the issue. Quick-ease2020 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is wise not to assume vandalism (unless it is manifest vandalism, like someone adding "I <3 coookies!") if you don't know much about the topic. Even if you suspect vandalism, at least research the topic before reverting. If accessible sources are provided, that should not be too difficult. Otherwise, instead of reverting, raise the issue on the talk page of the article; it is what talk pages are for. --Lambiam 16:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do for the future. Thanks for the advice! Quick-ease2020 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

update: edits were reverted because of a sockpuppet account: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial Quick-ease2020 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing should be moved to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life of an illegal migrants

Legal migrants to USA, Europe have better life but what happens to asylum seekers and illegal migrants in USA Europe? Do they become rich after few years? MiguelCiytrf (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: asylum seekers are legal migrants. Also, "better life" and "rich" are kind of differing concepts. --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for the United States is that immigrants do slightly better than the average for native-borns. I suspect this is for people with green cards. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No human being is "illegal". The main difference with other residents is that they are not officially recognized as residents because they do not have certain documents that are legally required to be treated by the authorities as a human being. It is better to call them undocumented immigrants. French has the term sans-papiers, literally meaning "without papers". In the EU, they have no right to take a job that will earn them some money, or to follow a study at a university. They can only work illegally in the underground economy and are afraid all the time of being put in detention and deported to the country they fled from. It is not an existence one would wish for any human being. --Lambiam 10:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthand for "migrants here illegally". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And "illegal migrant"/"illegal immigrant" doesn't say that any person is illegal, so I don't understand your objection. The formulation is no different from "illegal driver", which is a quite common usage that attracts no such objection. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"illegal driver" is not a common usage at all in American English. --Golbez (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... so they don't speak American English in Oklahoma City? https://www.newson6.com/story/5e365ab35c62141fdeeb4b87/oklahoma-city-bombing-victims Or in New Jersey? https://www.verizon.com/about/news/press-releases/mahwah-police-double-illegal-driver-apprehensions-new-wireless-data-system --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's still other such forms, like "illegal occupant". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two examples you found were from 10 and 26 years ago, and that's your evidence for calling it "common usage"? --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Newspapers.com, I'm seeing "illegal driver" as recently as last year, and in Oklahoma as recently as 2016. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool? --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that someone labelled as an "illegal driver" violated a criminal statute and can be brought to court to answer for that. In many cases, individuals labelled as "illegal immigrants" did not violate any criminal statute. They just don't have the right papers. --Lambiam 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that someone labelled an illegal immigrant is someone who has immigrated illegally. These papers that they lack are necessary for legal immigation. Meaning that anyone who immigrates without them has done so illegally. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what does "someone who has immigrated illegally" even mean? Does the USA or any country have any law that says that someone who has fled from persecution in their home country in a boat and lands on American soil, starving and dehydrated, without even food or water let alone papers, has done something illegal? Exactly which law has been broken? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means they haven't followed the procedures established by law. Part of those procedures have to do with deciding whether someone qualifies for asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about someone who arrives unannounced by boat, and then reports to the police, who refer him to the immigration authorities, who commence some sort of processing procedure. Presumably, at this stage he's become "legal" since he's complying with official procedures (not the same as an approved resident, but voluntarily in the system just the same), but when he turned up on shore he wasn't "legal". At what exact point did his status change? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once he complies with official procedures, he is no longer an illegal immigrant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, my problem with "illegal immigrant" is grammatical as much as ethical. "Illegal" is an adjective that is applied to actions, or failures to act, but not to people. Nobody is either legal or illegal. If such a thing as an "illegal immigrant" can exist, then anyone who breaks any law whatsoever could become "an illegal human being". 1984 was a while back now, but the memories linger ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not being applied to them as a person, it is being applied to them in terms of their actions. If I occupy a house illegally, I am an "illegal occupant". It says nothing about my legality as a person. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone flees their country and applies for asylum in a supposedly safe country, they did nothing that was illegal in the country of arrival, at least not in countries that recognize the right of asylum, such as all countries of the EU. If the application is rejected and they appeal, they cannot be deported (in countries where "the rule of law" still means something). Are they then "illegally" in the country? Some politicians and the media are not shy of referring to them as "illegals". So is their migration retroactively "illegal"? Still, in most EU countries, they are sans-papiers – they cannot work, they cannot study, they cannot marry. In Poland it is a criminal offence to help undocumented people: good-hearted locals have become the illegals. Other EU countries are considering similar legislation. --Lambiam 10:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"and applies for asylum" There's the point. An illegal immigrant doesn't apply for asylum. Once you enter the bureaucratic procedures, you are no longer an illegal immigrant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you may be labelled as such. The media makes no difference between asylum seekers denied asylum and other people lacking certain documents. --Lambiam 18:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. What is or is not legal is a matter for courts or legislatures to determine. Not the media, not individual partisan politicians, not the man in the street, not the reasonable man, and not random commentators (on Wikipedia or anywhere else). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What authority says that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What authority says what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A term being misused is not an argument for not using the term. It is an argument for using the term correctly.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no fun. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to answer the original question. As others have pointed out, asylum seekers are a category of legal immigrant. If their asylum application is approved, they can usually work and live freely and may have a path to citizenship. Many countries let applicants work while their application is awaiting a decision. As outsiders without connections or a work record in their new country, these immigrants tend to face hard work, often for long hours, for lower pay than native-born citizens. They often get by but seldom get rich. Then, there is the possibility that an application for asylum is rejected. In that case, the applicant faces a risk of being sent back to their home country or otherwise facing disruption to their lives. For other immigrants who don't go through a legal process, something similar is true: Hard work, often for long hours and for less pay than most native-born citizens. Those who haven't gone through a legal process and who aren't seeking asylum also face a lifelong risk of being arrested and deported. Life for immigrants, especially unskilled immigrants, is usually not easy. Costs are lower in most parts of Europe than in the US, but so is average pay, and pay for undocumented immigrants is usually well below average, so they tend not to live well. The cost of living in the United States is much higher than in most countries. It might sound great to hear that you can make $10 an hour doing construction work as an undocumented immigrant in the United States. Until you hear that you won't be able to get to work without spending at least $400 a month on a car, you can't rent an apartment for less than $2,000 a month in many places, and you will spend at least $100 a week on food as a single person if you cook at home and never go to restaurants. Health insurance in the United States is not provided for most low-paid workers. It typically costs nearly $1,000 per month per person. If you are uninsured and you need medical care, the cost can be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and you could be in debt the rest of your life. Imagine trying to support a child with those costs. Life can be very hard for immigrants in the United States. Aside from the minority who immigrate legally with valuable skills and professional qualifications, most struggle to survive and very few become rich. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Caspar Röist Image

Hello!

Does anyone know if there is any illustration/image of Caspar Röist, captain of the Swiss Guard out there on the internet? I get the feeling that if there ever was one, it was most likely either destroyed in the sack of Rome or kept in some library in the Vatican. Sorry if this is an irrelevant question on a very minor historical figure (haha)!

-Roosterchz Roosterchz (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all irrelevant. However, although entering "Caspar Röist" in a common search engine yields a number of images, those that are historically contemporary (that I have examined) turn out to be of other people involved (such as the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor of the time). Most others appear to be recent and therefore conjectural – he has of course been prtrayed in film (and, it appears, anime or manga-related media). Nor does any factual article in a Reliable source I have seen contain an illustration of him, which – since a 16th-century portrait would be in the public domain – suggests there aren't any.

Disclaimer: I am not a historian or art historian, and my search was far from exhaustive, so it's quite possible that someone else might be able to do better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Al Biruni, What did he say?

CLOSED

Closing here since a related discussion had to be opened at WP:NORN. Bookku (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding Tashabbuh bi’l-kuffār (Link to draft in user sandbox) an anecdote seem to have been covered by couple of WP:RS sources. Though a little, but there seems some difference in versions of the anecdote.

".. Al-Biruni rejoined: 'The Byzantines also eat food. Then do not imitate them in this!' .. Al-Biruni was sarcastic yet he made a point worth stressing: .." ~ As covered by Lawrence, Bruce. Muslim Cosmopolitanism, The Idea of Islam. United Kingdom, C Hurst & Company, 2012. p 22.

".. Other mu’adhdhins were of “excessive ignorance.” One of them was upset that all available measurement devices and time tables were based on the (solar) “Byzantine year,” not the Arab (lunar) year, and “his ignorance made him at the end refuse to accept anything based on the Byzantine months, not allowing it into the mosque, since [those] people are not Muslims. Then I said to him: The Byzantines also eat food and walk around the market. Do not imitate them in these two things [either]?” .." ~ As covered by Barbara Freyer Stowasser in “Time Sticks”: How Islam and Other Cultures Have Measured Time.

Which version is likely to be more correct?
Whether Al-Biruni was answered by any theologians, if yes, then by whom and how?
Any other sources covers any similar anecdote on topic of Tashabbuh ?

Bookku (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowasser's version is what Al-Biruni himself reports^[4] in his book The Exhaustive Treatment of Shadows (in the translation by Edward Stewart Kennedy; the original text is in Persian). Curiously, although having been called "the most important book on shadow ever written",^[5] I do not find it mentioned on Wikipedia. --Lambiam 10:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I updated one of the prime editor (at User talk:Reify-tech) of the article Shadow in case they find information shared by you interesting. Bookku (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Biruni said, what he said actually was, "My name is Al, and I like Biryani". 2.28.124.7 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I also did not know that in WP discussions WP user's own humour ought to be tagged as ^[Humor] :). Bookku (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 8

"American-style" railway carriage

The article about the Burwood railway station, Melbourne notes that beginning in 1898, it was served by a train consisting of one or two "American-style" carriages hauled by a steam locomotive. Any idea what an American-style railway carriage would be, or how it would differ from the typical late-colonial-era Australian carriage? Google gives me almost nothing; the results are either irrelevant (e.g. horse-drawn) or don't explain anything. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is like the, "what do they call Brazil nuts in Brazil?" problem. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pt:Bertholletia excelsa uses the scientific name, but the first alternate name is "castanha-do-brasil"; this also is mentioned in the brazil nut article. Nyttend (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific names are always italicized. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British (or European) carriages have a side aisle and American carriages have a central aisle.
Sleigh (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A slight qualification; British carriages had compartments, either accessed directly from the platform or by a corridor at one side. Our corridor coach article says they were "first introduced, in Britain at least, around the start of the 20th century", so British carriages in the 1890s must have just had compartments with no connecting corridor. The same article also says: "The corridor coach was known on the European continent as the American system or American coach in the early 1900s". Both types were phased out in the UK during the 1970s IIRC. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Baykal

In 1990, the Social Democratic Populist Party of Turkey wrote the article "Perspective on the Eastern and Southeastern Problems and Proposals for Solving Them" (Doğu ve Güneydoğu Sorunlarına Bakışı ve Çözüm Önerileri). The article criticised the Turkish government's policy towards the Kurds as "state terrorism" (Devlet terörüne). I noticed that the committee that wrote this article was headed by Deniz Baykal, which puzzled me because of his strict Turkish nationalist views when he later became the leader of the Republican People's Party. I have read two different accounts on the internet, one that he did agreed with the views in the article when he led the writing of it, and only later, for some reason, shifted to strict Turkish nationalist views, and the other that he was opposed to the views in the article from the beginning, and that he only nominally led the writing of it as the Secretary General of the Social Democratic Populist Party. Which is closer to the truth? Dinuco (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the true explanation, but there appears to be a tendency among politicians to espouse at any given time those views that are politically the most expedient. In 1990, the SHP saw an opportunity to woo the Kurdish section of the electorate. The resurrected CHP might have been less strictly nationalist than its predecessor if it had not been vying for the same voters as the nationalist DHP. As I remember Baykal's opposition, it consisted solely of opposing in a negative sense; I don't recall any proposal ever being made, so it is hard to tell what his views, if any, were. --Lambiam 13:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gloriana Ranocchini

The article Gloriana Ranocchini lists her passing in 1993 but the statement is entirely unsourced. I fail to find anything on her passing online or in Swedish media archives, but presumably San Marinese (and maybe Italian?) media must have reported on it when it happened? AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this per WP:BLP. --Lambiam 14:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Unless San Marino is very different it feels like there should have been some reporting on her post 1993 to disprove it if she didn't die in 1993. Even if it's just "Former head of state acquires cute dog" or some other fluff piece. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels to me like there should have been some reporting on the death of a former head of state if she did die. The absence of such reports is IMO more significant than the absence of reported signs of life. --Lambiam 21:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the online mentions of her that I can find, some of them much more recent than 1993, indicated that she had died, except those that are obviously quoting or relying on the Wikipedia article. Many of the latter will, of course, not be updated: thus do false facts proliferate from unsourced (and possibly malicious) edits here :-(. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]