Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asmrulz (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 20 August 2017 (Undid revision 796362018 by Asmrulz (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:


August 15

Why don't people in England speak a Romance language?

If England was controlled by the Romans before,why aren't Romance languages spoken there today? Please note that I'm fully aware that most words in modern Englsih are derived from French and Latin. Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Romans where no missionaries. The Roman Empire was Exploitation colonialism. --Kharon (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This question is answered in full at English language#Proto-Germanic to Old English. Matt's talk 03:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The basic traditional answer is that the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain were the migration of a whole people, as opposed to the Visigoths in Spain and such, where the Germanic conquerors formed only a thin ruling class, underneath which there was substantial continuity of the provincial Roman society. There's some more extended discussion in "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World" by Nicholas Ostler, near the end of Chapter 7. Others have wondered if the Anglo-Saxon languages hadn't caught on, whether the inhabitants of England would be speaking a Romance language or a Celtic one (and then there's Brithenig, which splits the difference).
By the way, "most words in modern English are derived from French and Latin" (and Greek) only if you count dictionary entries. There's a much more even split if you count the words in a text... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related but inverted question: why don't the French speak a Germanic language? The Franks had sufficient influence to change the name of the country and people where they settled, but not to change the language. It seems that most other former Roman countries either took the name and language of the invaders (England, Scotland, Turkey, Hungary), or retained their own name and language (Italy, Spain). Why did France take the name of the invaders but retain a Romance language? Iapetus (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because largely the invaders had a pretense towards re-establishing the Roman Empire. Medieval Latin remained the languages of the upper classes and a lingua franca throughout Western Europe, and a prestige language. After Charlemagne re-established the Western Roman Empire with himself as Emperor, Latin (the language of the upper classes) and Old French (a form of vulgar Latin that was slowly evolving into French) were the main languages of his realm. Starting with the Oaths of Strasbourg, Old French increasingly became a language of government, slowly displacing Latin. --Jayron32 12:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans failed to invade Scandinavia. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did they ever seriously try to do so? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason to. The Romans weren't big aficionados of skiing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans certainly were aware of Scandanavia, see Swedes (Germanic tribe). While Rome did not invade Scandinavia (which would have been difficult given that they never incorporated any land bordering it!) they did trade with them, hinted at in History_of_Scandinavia#Roman_Iron_Age and Germanic-Roman contacts. Both iron ore and grain were important Scandinavian exports. --Jayron32 12:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Welsh language has a fair number of Latin loan words picked-up from the Romans, mostly relating to technology introduced by them; ffenest (window) pont (bridge) and melin (mill) spring to mind. As modern Welsh is descended from the Common Brittonic language spoken by the Ancient Britons, it's a fair assumption that the average Romano-British person had a fair smattering of Latin. Alansplodge (talk)
You'd be hard pressed to find a single modern European language which did not have significant numbers of Latin/Romance loanwords, given the pervasiveness of Latin and Romance languages throughout history. Even Russian (see [1], i.e. Comrade). Analysis of language evolution suffers from a Ship of Theseus problem, languages change in incremental ways over time, and they change through contacts with other cultures. Even linguists have a hard time coming up with a taxonomy they can all agree to (see Lumpers and splitters#Language classification, and somewhat flippant adage A language is a dialect with an army and navy). --Jayron32 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although in the case of Welsh, this can be directly attributed to the Roman occupation rather than Medieval or Renaissance scholarship. See The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal (p. 392) edited by Richard Jenkyns, and The Welsh Language: A History (p. 7) by Janet Davies. Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welsh also has significant contributions from Norman French, which makes since since the Normans, as a ruling class, were in Wales as long as the Romans were: [2]. --Jayron32 10:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normani ite domum? Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Mother of Jesus

Question sparked by a comment about Mary in the Guanyin discussion above: Muslims do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, but merely a prophet. Muslims venerate Mary, but do not believe in the immaculate conception. So, why do Muslims venerate Mary? What did she do / how did she lead her life that was so special? DOR (HK) (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Mary in Islam which is quite detailed and explains her role in the Qu'ran. --Jayron32 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article carefully skirts around the major issue that calling Mary the "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Imran" (i.e. Amram), means that the Qur'an confuses Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses (two figures who are at least a thousand years apart). AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate personal interchange; you guys should know better. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, that means that YOU characterize such as a confusion. The text says what the text says. Your interpretation begins with the word "means" which is what you believe it to mean. --Jayron32 16:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice -- if you personally choose to interpret the Qur'an as a free floating fairy-tale with no connection to any events on planet earth (the same way that you chose to interpret Great Expectations last week), then everything is in a relativist haze where nothing can said to be right or wrong (or you can choose to regard it as being that way). However, as soon as the Qur'an is located as document belonging to a certain culture at a certain period of history, then we're no longer floating in an indeterminate haze, and some things immediately become much more probable than other things... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said any of that, so your argument is entirely null. I have provided no interpretation, and never said that it was a free floating fairy-tale. YOU said that. I have not made any statement one way or the other, so your characterization of me is a strawman which serves no purpose. Instead of making rude defensive statements characterizing me based on nothing except your own insecurity at being called out for not directing the OP to any useful reading, cite reliable sources instead of telling us what you think. Just direct the reader to reliable commentary on the subject, and don't tell them what they should think about it. --Jayron32 17:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- you seem to operate under an extreme relativist theory of literary criticism, where the minute somebody says something that goes beyond the literal words of the text, then it's all merely pure personal opinion, where no one personal opinion is any more right or wrong than any other. That was certainly the strong impression I received from your exegesis of Great Expectations (and you didn't bother to contradict it at the time). I find the extension of this philosophy from literature to religion to be unhelpful, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't say so. AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't operate under any of that so stop with the bullshit where you tell me what I think where I haven't stated it. Stop pretending like you can read my mind, it's rude and I'll ask you to stop it. What I have said is that you have not provided the OP with any reliable sources to read. Provide some sources, because until you do you are doing nothing of value here. I've never said that "no one personal opinion any more right or wrong than any other" Instead, in the context of the role of the reference desk, we're not here to provide our own personal opinions. We're here to direct people to published scholarship, either here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Stop telling me I believe what I have never stated believe, because it doesn't have anything to do with my belief. Provide some references or shut the fuck up. --Jayron32 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever dude -- it's been pretty extensively discussed in various Muslim-Christian dialogues over the years, but all your postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic garbage (clearly visible in your message of "16:55, 15 August 2017" directly above) doesn't create any corresponding urgency in me to seek out sources. In fact I see no real reason to cater to your free-floating indeterminate fairy-tale haze as if you were a random honest questioner. Showing that you have some basic respect for facts, truth, and evidence would be far more effective on me than a barrage of four-letter words. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty much the exact opposite of a "postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic" so you characterization of me as such is beyond hilarious. I have ONLY respect for absolute facts, truth, and evidence, but no respect for randos who show up and tell people what they know without providing evidence. You'll note that ONE person in this debate has presented evidence. It's not you. One person has showed up telling people their own opinions, and has provided no facts at all, that's you. The irony of the situation should be plain. For someone who attacks others as relativistic (and funnily enough, picks the exact wrong person to do it to, because I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of that) you certainly do a lot of claiming that facts and evidence aren't important enough to provide, and instead just expect us to trust you. Don't provide facts and evidence to me. I've already researched them and helped the OP find them. Provide them to the OP. --Jayron32 18:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to be mistaken for one, then don't act like one, as in your "01:39, 3 August 2017" comment on Great Expectations[3], and don't be so quick to don't tell other people that what they say is merely their personal opinion (with the implication that all such opinions are equally valid, which I find incredibly annoying). AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All opinions are NOT equally valid. Your opinion, for example, that I am a relativist is absolutely wrong, and thus is a shit opinion. Which I keep telling you. You also ignore what I say when it is inconvenient for you to have to confront it, so you keep skipping over it to create a fictional character to disagree with, and then give that fictional character my name. Stop that. The only thing you have done wrong, and the only thing I will keep reminding you have done wrong, until you either fix the problem or go away, is to provide the OP with facts for them to answer their question. I have never said that any opinion is valid. I have said YOUR opinion is worthless, because you are not a reliable, published expert on the matter. Instead of giving your opinion, give them something to read. You know, a reference. Stop deflecting this into some invented character you've made me out to be, and provide some sources to be useful to the OP. --Jayron32 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you had bothered to look at the Amram article, you would have seen that it's widely agreed that Qur'anic "Imran" does mean Amram in another passage... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of seconds of Googling brings up lots of Islamic scholarship on the issue. A lot of jumping through hoops, you might say...reminds me of New Testament exegesis :) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As explained at Jayron's link, and also at Jesus in Islam, Muslims do believe that Jesus had a virgin birth. Mary was chosen by God, purified by God to be without sin, and gave birth to Jesus who was also without sin. In Islamic teaching Jesus is not God incarnate, but his birth and life are still considered miraculous. He would generally be considered the second most important prophet, behind only Muhammad. Dragons flight (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading those articles, it appears that in Muslim theology God endowed Mary with the Holy Spirit and she conceived and had a son, Jesus. So who do Muslims consider His father to be? 92.19.169.76 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This book presents one particular Muslim scholar's statement on the matter on page 127. --Jayron32 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional Islamic view, as I understand it, is that Jesus has no father. Jesus, like Adam, was a divine creation. However, Islam does not consider it correct to say that God "fathered" Jesus. Dragons flight (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was carried over to Talk:Mary in Islam#Article avoids a major issue. It appears that I have taken a postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic stance similar to Jayron32's. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roflmao. --Jayron32 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't imply that every personal opinion is just as valid as any other, I would say you didn't... AnonMoos (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia Authority

Constitutionally, do the President and/or the Supreme Court have anything to do with the District of Columbia when its engaged in acts that normally would fall on the state's governor and/or the legislature?

I know that DC derives its authority from the US Constitution, Article I "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States", Section 8 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." But does that mean that the President and the Supreme Court are totally cut out?

For example, if someone is about to be prosecuted for simple burglary in DC and the prosecutors office must make a decision on whether or not the case is worth prosecuting, would the prosecutor's authority to make that decision come directly from the Congress, passed down through Washington's mayor, similar to any of the 50 states? Like: Legislature => Governor => Prosecutor is similar to Congress => Mayor => Prosecutor. Wouldn't this allow Congress, if they wanted, to overrule DC's prosecutors in the case of a simple burglary?

Or does the authority flow through the executive branch, so that the President can overrule the prosecutors office? Like this: Congress => President => Mayor => Prosecutors Office. Does this mean that the President has the power to interfere in a non-federal crime? Does he also have the power, for instance, to interfere in DC's budget? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per our Washington, D.C. article, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term (while not stated in so many words, this implies “by the voting residents of the District”). And, “Congress typically provides additional grants for federal programs such as Medicaid and the operation of the local justice system…” The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 put in place legal system reforms. Adult felon prisoners are under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The District also runs misdemeanor Detention and Correctional centers. Parole is handled by the United States Parole Commission. As DC is under the authority of Congress, the President would not be involved in any legal decisions. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

Historical events and film/sound

What's the oldest historical event that was recorded on sound? I'm guessing it'd be something from the 1880s or 1890s that would have had people a.knowing it would be taking place and b.being able to have some sort of recording device around to lug to where it would be happening?

(apparently the Smithsonian has a bunch of about 400 records from the 1880s and 90s,but up till now no-one has a clue what's on them as they've been unplayable!?)

Also,what's the oldest historical event that has been recorded on moving film? Lemon martini (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Browning was honored at a dinner in London in his last year, on April 7th, 1889 and recited a poem, which was recorded on an Edison cylinder. It was played back a year later at a memorial dinner. He was the first person to speak at his own memorial dinner. Perhaps the first dinner in 1889 might be considered a minor historical event. There are doubtless many fake recordings of historic events, such as battles or speeches, just as there are fake films of historic events. An actor might recite a speech which was then sold as a recording by the politician, in an era when every recording was an original and copies could not yet be made. Edison (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need a good definition of "historical event," since the oldest movie of anything becomes automatically historical, such as the "Roundhay Garden Scene" claimed to be from 1888 or Edison'swell documented Fred Ott sneezing on Jan 7 1894. The earliest Lumere films are from 1895. This is supposed to be Tsar Nicholas II visiting Queen Victoria at Balmoral in 1896. It so murky it could be anyone. As I said above, it was common in the early days to stage reenactments of events which were in the newspapers. Queen Victoria visited a garden party in 1898. There was a movie of the aftermath of the sinking ofthe USS Maine in 1898 , of theBoer War (or at least troops parading) from 1899 and there were some films of European heads of state in the very early 20th century. There was nothing to prevent a cinematographer from filming a prize fight, a parade, a fire, or a political speech, but only a tiny fraction of early films survive. They were made to be shown for a few months and then generally tossed aside. The filmstock was flammable and decayed over time. There was an actual movie of the aftermath of the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. Edison (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a hundred years to the day after Fred Ott sneezed, Fred Ottman (famous as Tugboat, infamous as The Shockmaster) became Uncle Fred, a gimmick which pop historians could've sneezed and missed, had the awesome power of magnetic tape not preserved it forever one fateful Saturday night. Or if not forever, at least considerably longer than nitrocellulose. More on topic, 1894 saw both a kinetoscope movie about a wrestling match and an apparent normal film about a wrestling dog. The latter starred Henry Welton, leading man of such documentary classics as Cock Fight, Cock Fight No. 2 and Professor Welton's Boxing Cats. Some are almost undoubtedly lost forever, but worth mentioning. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, August 16, 2017 (UTC)
As for the history of magnetic sound, Valdemar Poulsen captured Franz Joseph I of Austria saying something in 1900, and it's allegedly the oldest of its kind, but Wikipedia sources that fact from somewhere which doesn't claim it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, August 16, 2017 (UTC)
For the oldest audio, going with the def of a "historic event" for being among the oldest audio, we have Edison's recital of Mary had a Little Lamb from 1877. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The recording referred to above by Inedible says: “die(?) Erfindung hat mich sehr interessiert und ich danke für die Vorführung derselben”, in translation “the(?) invention has been of great interest to me and I am thankful for the demonstration”. The invention seems to have been Poulsen´s telegraphone. The German article says that one of the telegraphones was purchased by some institute of the then Austro-Hungarian Empire and that the recording was made in Vienna in 1901, on the 12th of October. There is a recording here, published by the Technical Museum in Vienna, so I assume this to be genuine. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the superbly appropriately named Edison,I would define historical event here (using excellent Wikipedia terms!) as being 'an event that was notable not just because it had been recorded'-so a disaster,a sporting event,a presidential speech-something other than everyday human activities such as people sneezing or walking about.

Having done a bit more hunting,our article History_of_film gives us this: "Regular newsreels were exhibited from 1910 and soon became a popular way for finding out the news – the British Antarctic Expedition to the South Pole was filmed for the newsreels as were the suffragette demonstrations that were happening at the same time" which takes up back to 1911. Lemon martini (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edison took a tinfoil phonograph to the White House and recorded President Hayes April 18, 1878.The fragile tinfoil recording is not preserved to the best of my knowledge. Edison associates in Europe recorded on a wax cylinder the voice and piano playing of Brahms on 2 December 1889, but the recordings are of poor quality. There is a good recording of the voices of Tchaikovsky and friends in 1890, .but nothing particularly historical seems to have been going on at either occasion, like the premier of a new work. There has long been speculation of whether the phonautograph, a predecessor of the phonograph could have been used to record earlier 19th century events or people, since it was around in the 1860's. There is in fact at present a Dick Tracy comicstrip featuring someone promoting a fake recording of Lincoln on phonautograph, and there was a novel featuring a phonautograph recording of the Gettysburg Address. As for films, Muybridge could conceivably made a 1 or 2 second movie record of some event by 1882, rather than the scientific/artistic subjects he photographed. Edison (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See archaeoacoustics for the oldest recordings, assuming that you believe it works. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pathe news seems to be good for this. this gives a clear if silent portrayal of Queen Victoria's funeral in 1901 whilst is William McKinley's inauguration in 1897.According to the Book of Firsts(Harrison,2003) Grover Cleveland is the first President to have been filmed-at this ceremony. Lemon martini (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Men with "1 WEEK" signs

I just watched a few minutes of a TV documentary show about the building of the Grand Coulee Dam. The narrator mentioned that during the Great Depression 12,000,000 American men became unemployed. And at this point there were a few seconds of old film showing a group of men walking together along a city street, at least 6 abreast. I couldn't tell if they were on the street itself or the sidewalk. But on a string around his neck, each man was wearing a printed sign presumably naming the job he was unemployed from—LABORER, PAINTER, FIREMAN, PORTER, etc.—most of the signs were in similar lettering. Still more striking, each man's hat had an identical sign on the front reading 1 WEEK, with a large digit 1 on a separate line above the word WEEK.

It clearly had the appearance of an organized demonstration, but not one I've ever seen photos of. The narrator, speaking in generalities about the Depression, did not say anything about it. Anyone recognize it from this description?

And I don't understand what the "1 WEEK" referred to: in that era clearly many men had been unemployed for much longer than a week, and I presume they would be willing to take jobs that would last less than a week. So what would those signs have meant? --69.159.60.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the men were looking for jobs which would pay them at intervals of one week? 79.79.138.16 (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a sneaking suspicion it wasn't "1 week" but was instead the logo for the Industrial Workers of the World, whose logo features an I on a line above W*W, which at a distance might look like 1 WEEK. The 1 on a separate line is what made me think of that logo. --Jayron32 11:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's anything like this illustration by Achille Beltrame, then the signs clearly say "1 WEEK" (but I wasn't able to find any film or photo footage quickly). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I think the whole Wobblies thing is chop suey- it was "hot Baths: 25c", ""25$, 26 weeks & Union Wages" etc. — fortunavelut luna 12:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sluzzelin, it appears it wasn't the Wobblies. I was working from the description of the sign, and that was the closest thing I could think of. Now that you've found the original picture, it looks like you're more right. Good find! --Jayron32 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found the film footage: You can see them here (seven seconds into the first Modern Marvels episode (1993), on the Grand Coulee Dam). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found another one too: [4]. Still no meaning for the 1 week bit, tho. --Jayron32 14:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've worked it out, following the film footage Sluzzelin posted. If you look closely, there's a character between the '1' and the 'week'. I think that's an 'A'. And if you look even more closely, there's a character above and to the left of the '1'. I think that's a dollar sign. In other words, the men are saying that they are willing to work for $1 a week. And if that doesn't earn me a barnstar, nothing will. --Viennese Waltz 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They where wearing signs which state their professions and which offered to work for a dollar a week. This obviously was a popular thing to do in New York in 1930.[5] Maybe someone organized this to sell lots of these signs. --Kharon (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the picture which confirms that I had the right answer, but you might have acknowledged that I got it before you. --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Excellent, Viennese Waltz! Before anyone complains about OR, see also this Universal Newsreel titled "Jobless seek work for board, bed and salary of $1 a week" (my emphasis, and I never would have found this without your scrutiny). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Sluzzelin for finding an image and Viennese for figuring out the signs. Kharon's link didn't work for me but by doing a similar seach I got to this book page, from Modern History in Pictures: A Visual Guide to the Events that Shaped Our World (DK/Smithsonian, ISBN 978-0-7566-9818-8), which specifically gives the date of the match march as November 8, 1930, and confirms that the signs asked for $1 a week. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC), typo fixed later.[reply]

Resolved

You can see Jayron's photo at [6], captioned "A demonstration by unemployed workers (their various trades are on display) prepared to labor for a dollar a week during the Great Depression, 1930s." 92.8.219.206 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resource for Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

I'd like to get a copy of this full article: https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article167408959/Ich-war-ein-einfaches-Opfer.html. It would be useful for the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunobu (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:REX. That part of Wikipedia specializes in getting full copies of articles. --Jayron32 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Went there.Dunobu (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White men's fascination with the sex life of African Americans

Hi, I was reading Black Like Me for a college project, and I have watched the film too. As it is based on real life events, why were White southerners in the United States so fascinated with the sex lives of African Americans? In the book/film they were particularly curious if they "ever had it from a white woman". Why is this? Was this a southern phenomenon? --Questinouios (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it came out, pretty much anyone old enough to know what sex is remembered segregation and Jim Crow. As difficult as legal desegregation was, forcing social desegregation was even harder and so at the time most white people, by and large, did not associate with black people. That "Black Like Me" sold well outside the South leads me to believe that it wasn't just white southerners at the time who didn't quite grasp that black men and white women could have sex just as two white people, or two black people, or a black woman and a white man could. Plus, stereotypes about black men being better in bed (or at least better hung) and irrational fears over "miscegenation" would have created a mystique around interracial couples. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Miscegenation and all the stuff it links to will give plenty of reading material. Note that at the time the book was written, it was still illegal for blacks and whites to marry in numerous U.S. states. Gotta make sure the races don't mix, as God intended! And then because of that there's a whole forbidden fruit aspect, and all kinds of associated psychosocial human weirdness. Racial fetishism has been a thing for a long time, and even today in the U.S., when there are no legal restrictions on interracial relationships, there's still a persistent air of social taboo around the subject. Obviously this varies by time and place. An interracial couple in New York City or Los Angeles are unlikely to get a second glance, but in a lot of rural areas they may draw attention, and there are still people who won't tolerate their children having an interracial relationship. (There are plenty of anecdotes, as a Web search will attest.) --47.138.161.183 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May want to read about Sexual revolution to see the difficulty of sexual relationships befor the "revolution". White men shure didnt have much fun with women of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, who put allot of effort to make prostitution, gambling and alcohol illegal. Also i would disagree with the IP-answer regarding the marriage. It was less a case to prevent racial mixing but to exclude black people from the legal benefits and status of a marriage or more precise the juristic and social complications a mixed couple would imply due to the racial segregation and discrimination. --Kharon (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kharon, I suspect that the Woman's Christian Temperance Union would disagree with your point of view. They'd surely claim that they can have a lot of fun with white men without having to pay money for it. ;-) (Remember they're still active and so WP:BLP applies). Matt's talk 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take another look at Wikipedia:BLP, in particular section Wikipedia:BLPGROUP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
M.R.Forrester, they where very, very close to the Ku Klux Klan. I have high doubts about the fun part. --Kharon (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kharon, all I knew before today was what's in our article, which says nothing about members having defective sexual relationships or about KKK links. I don't what your sources are, but please go ahead and add the info to the article, because it sounds important. I tried to find out more, and found several blog and pressure group pages making the KKK claim, all of which traced back to the same origin, the pro-alcohol campaigner David J. Hanson. Looking back through his article's history, it seems to be a minefield of claims and counter-claims about Prof. Hanson's alleged funding by the alcohol industry. The most reliable source I could find was K.M.Blee's Women of the Klan, which shows how several of the leaders of the KKK's female auxiliaries came from the WCTU. But she also says (p.104): "The WCTU did not share the vicious, hate-mongering attitudes of the late Klan movement. Indeed, the WCTU had black members and a commitment to work with immigrants and ethnic minorities." Obviously I haven't had time to read the whole of that book, but it's highly commended for its scholarship in the LA Times review by Barbara Ehrenreich. She (following Blee) says there were links because both were attractive to American feminists as vehicles for (some) women's empowerment, though Ehrenreich insists that "the Women's KKK was not just a more militant version of the Women's Christian Temperance Union", because it took an intellectual leap to join the racists. It seems this situation had plenty of grey, alongside definite areas of black and white (in the form of the vile KKK's white sheets). She says, "I used to have a comforting image of the Ku Klux Klan as an assemblage of social misfits and genetically inbred white trash. No more." Perhaps the same should apply to our image of the WCTU? Matt's talk 00:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

Are Christianity and Islam types of Judaism?

70.57.89.148 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term you're looking for is Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity did start out as a branch of Judaism, but quickly diverged. Islam, on the other hand, isn't so much a branch of Judaism as "inspired" by it. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was some debate in the Catholic church regarding whether Muslims were pagans (followers of a different religion) or heretics (i.e., apostate Christians). I do not think it was fully resolved. - Nunh-huh 09:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is one POV. The Christian POV is that Christianity continues the main line of development of the religion of ancient Israel, from which Judaism diverged. Matt's talk 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be another POV, but it's not historically useful. There is no symmetry here. Christianity emerged from Judaism, but it had a major theological break and (partially as a result of that break) grew primarily by converting gentiles. Most of the original adherents of Judaism did not become Christians, and while Judaism also changed very much, theologically it was a much more gradual gradual process. It's also not a POV that I have heard from scholarly sources (though it may well be stressed among Christian apologists). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are tomatoes a fruit? Are humans animals? As with any man-made category, the answer depends on the criteria you're using. With that said, the essentially universal classification used by people who study religion considers Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to be separate religions, though the former two are in a sense "descended" from the latter. Similarly, Buddhism is often considered "descended" from Hinduism. Note that Judaism also received a good amount of influence from Zoroastrianism, and religious scholars will tell you Judaism emerged from the earlier Ancient Semitic religions. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and Christianity was heavily influenced by Platonism and Mithraism, while Islam merged local beliefs with influences from both Christianity and Judaism. Or they were all handed down, perfect and unchanging, from a benevolent omnipotent creator god ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly doubt that Christianity was significantly influenced by Mithraism. AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my memory for obscure religious facts isn't always perfect, so I may have overstated the case ;-). They did, however, emerge to prominence at the same time, in the same place, and with quite similar forms of worship. At least parts of early Christianity and Mithraism share properties of various mystery cults. Also see Mithraism#Mithraism_and_Christianity.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather dubious whether Christianity was a "mystery religion" in any ordinary sense, and in any case, there are considerable differences between Mithraism and Christianity -- Mithraism was an all-male religion with elaborate ranks and initiations, and had its strongest support among soldiers; while Christianity included women, had only the distinction between catechumens and the baptized (and no real secrets were learned during the ceremony of baptism), and had its strongest support among the lower classes of the cities. It's hard to say that Christianity and Mithraism originated "in the same place", when little is known about the origins of Mithraism (it's extremely unlikely that it originated in Judea). Early Christianity was influenced by a general cultural climate of ascetism (which was associated with a number of different philosophies and religions of the Mediterranean area), and adopted tools of analysis from the Greek philosophical tradition, but it's difficult to point to specific theological doctrines adopted from non-Jewish non-Christian religions... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may be descended from them, but in the modern sense they are not Judaism. What we now call Judaism in everyday conversation is Rabbinic Judaism, which takes the Talmud as the basis of much of its religious law. The main Jewish denominations, such as Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, descend from this (even if, like Reform Judaism, they no longer think of it as central). There are a few groups in the Jewish religious tradition that don't accept the Talmud, such as Karaites and Samaritans, but these are minority groups and their status is complicated (Israel says Samaritans need to officially convert in order to be recognized as Jews, for instance). Smurrayinchester 10:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three features of ancient Judaism:
  • They observed the sabbath
  • They observed the Law
  • They anticipated the coming of the Messiah

They still do all those things - Christians don't. 92.8.219.206 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be stricter. Maybe you've heard of blue laws? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have Islamic–Jewish relations and Christianity and Judaism.
You'll find Jean-Marie Lustiger, aka The Jewish Cardinal (who was even considered as a possible pope), of interest on the matter. Both about his understanding, and the reaction he got from other Jews (some were happy, others very angry). Things are somewhat more peaceful nowadays than marranoes (or is it marrani?) or Jesus himself experienced.
Bottom line: methink (but you can make your own opinion) that only a part of Christianity view itself as a type of Judaism, but not current Judaism, rather Judaism as the Christ taught it (which is different).
Gem fr (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. The question asks "Are Christianity and Islam types of Judaism?" Is there any reason to think that Christianity and Islam are types of Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is taxonomic (or at least, overapplication of an oversimplified taxonomy). Christianity began as a sect of judaism; the three most important figures in founding Christianity and establishing the basics of the religion were Jewish men (Jesus, St. Peter, St. Paul), the diety of the Christians is the same deity as that of the Jewish faith, the Christian religion counts the Jewish scriptures as part of its own scriptures, etc. So, Christianity clearly descends from a common ancestor as Judaism, and Judaism is older than Christianity. However, it's not correct to use the word "type" here, because that would imply that Christianity is Judaism, which it isn't. Christians don't consider themselves Jewish, and Jewish people don't consider Christians to be Jewish. But the two faiths do share a common history, diverging from each other during the 1st century CE. (it should be noted that even saying that Christianity evolved from Judaism is also wrong, as Judaism as we know it today is as much different from the faith of the people of Judea as Christianity is from the same; they two have evolved along divergent paths, just that Judaism has kept the name and history of its predecessors... but I digress) Similarly, Islam, while not sharing as close a historical connection to Judaism, does share its scriptures (at least partially, while not elevated to the same status as the Qur'an, the Jewish scriptures are still recognized as divine. See People of the Book as it relates to Islam). Many Jewish and Christian religious figures also appear prominently in Islamic tradition and the Qur'an (Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jesus, Mary, etc.) So there's a certain continuity of belief between the three, and since Judaism has the oldest tradition of the three, some may think of the other two as derivative from Judaism. But that's way too simplified. The two newer faiths are more correctly termed as sharing some common belief systems (mutual recognition of the same diety, some common texts and traditions, etc.) --Jayron32 19:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent overview of the situation, but I would just caveat that "Christians don't consider themselves Jewish" is an oversimplification. Messianic Judaism and Supersessionism are both examples of ways in which some Christians would consider themselves Jewish (or in the latter case, Israelite). Matt's talk 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — I would also note that the Messianic Judaism article is problematic in that it describes it as a syncretism, whereas they presumably consider themselves resorationist. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because life has a rule 34 to it; which is to say broadly that if you can conceive of ANY belief system, there's probably at least one adherent. So yes, you can find at least one Jewish person who considers Christians to be Jewish, and visa versa. One person (or some insignificantly small number) does not reflect the preponderance of people of those faiths. Of the world's billion or so Christians, the sects you list represent an insignificant portion of the whole. --Jayron32 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They may be insignificant by number, but they are not insignificant as theology and politics go. Jean-Marie Lustiger was a cardinal, and a preeminent one. The "jewish lobby" of USA diplomacy is actually more of christian zionists, philosemitic people, than Jews. Christian groups that think of Jews as "elder brethren" (a term you'll find in Christian Zionism article).
Gem fr (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "jewish lobby" is a concept created by White Supremacists, neo-nazis, and those who would belong to said groups but find it politically inexpedient to formally declare themselves so. It's a concept created to justify racism and antisemitism. --Jayron32 10:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't mentioned in the article, so, either you are wrong and should had refrain to state your POV here, or you are right and you should had mended the article (with proper reference), making your POV useless since the link to the article would had been enough. In either case, this do not belong here Gem fr (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence #2 of the article states "While at times self-described, usage of the term is viewed as inaccurate, and, particularly when used to allege disproportionate Jewish influence, it can be perceived as pejorative or may constitute antisemitism" (bold mine). The largest section of text in the article is about the problems with the term. I'm not sure how you missed any of that if you read it. --Jayron32 13:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... but that utterly different of what you said! Nowhere you'll find that the term was coined by and for antisemitism, and obviously, according to the article, members of the jewish lobby endorse it without any complex. Then again, your POV just do not belong here: ref desk is for bringing reference especially when the linked article is self-sufficient. Gem fr (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep telling yourself it isn't an anti-semitic term, and some day it might come true. Not today, but you never know what the future holds. --Jayron32 03:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Muslims believe that Islam has been the right and proper relationship between God and man since the time of the creation, then they might argue that Judaism is derived from Islam. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty astute response, and it reminds us that these questions about belief systems often carry at least two answers; how is does it work for someone within the belief system (that is, what does the belief system hold as its central truths) and how does it work for a disinterested outside observer (that is, how does prevailing scholarship from outside the belief system understand the historical context to work). --Jayron32 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
refnec. First time i hear this one. Gem fr (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the Islam article, "Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US bases in PRC and ROC

At 0:33 of this video[7], they show a map of US bases, with dots in Guangdong PRC and Taiwan ROC. Do US really have military bases in these places? Mũeller (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the image is best described as "based on past events". The US officially did have troops in Taiwan until 1979 - see United States Taiwan Defense Command. I don't know if they ever had a base at the coast of Guangdong, but I can image a base there in WW2 - the Flying Tigers certainly had bases not to far away inland. On the other hand, 800 bases overseas is not implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The dot near Guangdong is close enough that it might have been intended to mark Hong Kong. The US has a permanent Ship Supply Office in Hong Kong that facilitates 60-80 port calls per year for US military vessels. The facility predates the return of Hong Kong to China and has continued to operate since. It is not a huge facility, but if one is counting any permanent post as a "military base", I suppose it should count. Dragons flight (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Matt's talk 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec):A couple of thoughts: it seems most likely to me to refer to the US Navy's South China Patrol, which was based in that part of China until WW2. But then it is odd that there isn't also a dot for the Yangtze Patrol further north, or the China Marines. US air forces in China during the war is another possibility, but the dot doesn't seem to line up with any of the main air bases used by the US forces. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Schulz is right about the overall (misleading) picture, but I suspect that the Guangdong dot is intended to represent Hong Kong. It was never an American base in the sense that the US leased land there, though US ships were visiting almost constantly for refueling and R&R during the Cold War. I don't think it's the Flying Tigers: even if Mr Vine counts them as a US unit (which is debatable), they were focused on defending the Burma Road, which is hundreds of miles from Guangdong. Guangdong was completely unsafe for US bases by the time Fourteenth Air Force took control as well. Matt's talk 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The end of the video thanks David Vine and his forthcoming book "Base Nation". The book is at [8] and says approximately 800 bases like the video. The book map doesn't have the two discussed bases but it does show one in Hong Kong 400 km East of the marked spot in Guangdong. It probably refers to the Hong Kong Ship Support Office mentioned at List of United States Navy installations#Hong Kong and [9]. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parsees and Pharisees

What beliefs did/do they have in common, if any?70.57.89.148 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None, other than a coincidentally similar name. The words are false cousins, meaning that though they look to be similar words, they have no common etymology. As explained at Pharisee, the word derives from a Hebrew word meaning "to set apart", wheras the word Parsee (c.f. Persia, Farsi, Persepolis, etc.) derives from an Old Persian word that applied to a specific tribe which originated from what is now Fars Province. Old Persian is an Indo-European language, wheras Hebrew is a Afroasiatic language, meaning they aren't closely related at all as languages (quite literally Old Persian has more in common with English than it does with Hebrew). --Jayron32 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then they might have meant they were set apart because they had been exiled in Persia, and also enjoyed the punning similarity to Parsee.70.57.89.148 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The exile to Persia wouldn't have made any difference. The term "Persia" as applied to the country is both anachronistic and the wrong language. The country we today call "Iran" was only known as "Persia" because that's what the Greeks called it. They mistakenly borrowed a term which formerly applied to a single territory to the whole empire. (it would be akin to calling all Americans "New Yorkers"). The only time the Hebrew-speaking people subjugated to anything called Persia was under the reign of Cyrus the Great (previously, Hebrew-speaking peoples who wrote the bible had been subject to the Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Median Empire). Cyrus and his people would have never heard the term "Persian" or used any word like it to describe their own state. There's no reason for the people who used the word "Pharisee" to make such a connection. I agree that the Bible writers would have used such a pun if they had it available (the Bible is filled with puns and other wordplay), so it certainly would be possible, but no, it isn't possible because they would have had no reason to draw such connection. Also, the Pharisees, as a group, date from a time centuries after the time when Persia ruled the Jewish people. The Pharisees only arrived on the scene after the Maccabean Revolt, which is centuries after the Captivity. --Jayron32 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
then why is the language spoken in modern Iran called Farsi by Iranians?144.35.114.190 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "farsi" is not a native Persian-language word, but has actually gone through the Arabic language, as seen from the "f" (the Arabic language lacks a "p" sound)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Minor quibble to what Jayron32 wrote -- the ancient words referred to Persis, which isn't exactly the same as the modern Fars Province... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I never based my question on similarity between the two words, although of course I had noticed it and wondered. But since you guys gave information on them being false cousin words etc, I wanted to dig some more information out out of you and play devils advocate in case you were mistaken. The basis of my question was what AnonMoos said a long time ago, when I asked if Judaism was a type of Zoarastrianism, he explained the Pharisees were tolerant of or at least had, some Zoarastrianism influences, which intrigued me. BTW AnonMoos gave the most professional reply to that question...Medeis is outrageous saying I'm making bizarre claims, I wasnt making any claims, Im just asking questions and trying to make hypotheses and trying to learn about things I'm interested in. As far as my geographic location, Medeis is stereotyping me in a bizarre and insupportable way. And I wouldve voted for Biskupski if I had been able to vote then.144.35.114.190 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
70.57.89.148 -- there's absolutely no connection between the names. The term Pharisee was what their opponents called them (not what they usually called themselves), and has the form perushim in Hebrew. However, as compared to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were more open to some ideas ultimately due to direct or indirect Persian influences, such as afterlife rewards and punishments (as opposed to the earlier shadowy Sheol), angels and demons actively working good and evil in the world (as opposed to the earlier idea of angels as divine messengers), and an end-times apocalypse and bodily resurrection. AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
144.35.114.190 -- I'm not sure that I can tell you much more than I did in the paragraph above. However, Pharisees weren't the only Jews that were influenced directly or indirectly by ideas of ultimately Persian origin -- some of the authors of Deuterocanonical books and apocryphal Jewish apocalypses were also influenced... AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unite the Right rally Model Year of Car?

In regards to the Unite the Right rally, does anyone know the model year of the car that drove into the crowd of pedestrians? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article says "...a Dodge Challenger... a 2010 model with a base V6". Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the Washington Post says so too. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

"detachment" and "non-judicial punishment" in US Navy

[10] Military Times article says:

The commander of the destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the executive officer have been permanently detached from the ship and face non-judicial punishment over the deadly collision in June with a container ship, the Navy announced Thursday.

[The officers] are "being detached for cause," meaning that the Navy "has lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead," Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, said during a press conference.

What does detached actually mean, what is "non-judicial" punishment, and what happens to those guys? Non-judicial presumably means they won't go to jail, so will they be swabbing decks for the duration, or what? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means the have been removed from their position on board the ship without losing their rank (you can read about the policy HERE) and we have an article on non-judicial punishment you can read more there. uhhlive (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the report is a preliminary determination only. The full investigation is ongoing, and (as it's a complex, technical matter) will surely take many months to complete. No-one has been the subject of a court marshal, and those proceedings would wait until the investigation is complete. But, as with other complex investigations like airliner crashes, it's common for investigations to produce a preliminary report with recommendations for improvements. For example, if an airliner crashes, and a worn engine widget is quickly suspected, you might see an interim report a few months into the investigation recommending airline mechanics check all the widgets on similar engines for wear. This is a wise idea, because complex investigations can literally take years, and they don't want a known risk factor to remain unaddressed while that meticulous procedure is finalised. So, it seems, is the case for these officers - the evidence that the investigators have collected so far is enough that the Navy doesn't feel confident letting these officers command a warship. So "what happens to those guys" is up in the air, perhaps for a year or more. Once the investigation is concluded, there may be courts marshal, or the officers may be reassigned to active duties. In the meantime they're in something of an administrative limbo; I don't know what the officer equivalent of swabbing decks is, but it's probably paperwork. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

The adjective "Orwellian" refers to the dystopian retro-futurism in George Orwell's novel, 1984. The article states that Orwellian "particularly" relates to Nineteen Eighty-Four. What other G. W.→O. writings would be considered "Orwellian"? (Notwithstanding the literal sense that everything he wrote was "Orwellian"). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D4EC:691A:1EDC:835D (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "the term Orwellian – descriptive of totalitarian or authoritarian social practices" so I think Animal Farm is Orwellian too. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And, I forgot to note that the article also mentions Politics and the English Language. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D4EC:691A:1EDC:835D (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“G. W.”? —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'O' / 'W' typing errors are typical for ambidextrous folks (same finger / different hand). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A90E:D475:2878:2440 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Free France vs French Republic

When Nazi Germany occupied Poland and the Netherlands, their government escaped overseas and fought on as the Polish government-in-exile and the Dutch government-in-exile. They both claimed to be the sole legitimate successor to their original state. A whole bunch of other Allied countries did the same.

Except for France. De Gaulle chose to name his side "Free France" and even went as far as to pick a new flag for it:

What's the reason for this difference?

Suppose I was a French soldier back then, with sworn allegiance to the French Republic and have the flag of the French Republic stitched on my uniform, and I was considering joining the Allied cause. The decision would be slightly easier if the new side I'm joining is the French Republic (the same legal entity to which I swore allegiance to) and has the same flag as the one on my uniform. Mũeller (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands were fully occupied and controlled by a German occupational government (see Netherlands in World War II#German occupation). Poland ceased to exist as far as the Nazis were concerned - half of it was technically annexed to Germany itself (and the other half was occupied by the Soviets - see Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) among other articles). France was a bit different. Some of it was controlled by a German occupational government like in the Netherlands (see German military administration in occupied France during World War II), but some of it was technically independent, unoccupied, and "neutral", the zone libre or Vichy France. Since Vichy claimed to be the uninterrupted legitimate government, there was no government in exile, as was the case with the Netherlands and Poland. (Vichy was also fully occupied by Germany in 1942, but the Vichy government still pretended to be in power.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Vichy France officially called the "French State" in English ("État français" in French) and thus is distinct from the pre-occupation French Republic ("République française" in French)? At least that's the impression I'm getting from comparing the info bar of Vichy France and French Third Republic. They even have different emblems and different mottos.
Seems to me that if Vichy France isn't willing to claim the "French Republic" title then the title is free for De Gaulle for the taking. Yet he didn't take it for some reason. Mũeller (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's because the Third Republic was dissolved by the National Assembly with the French Constitutional Law of 1940 (10 July 1940), at the instigation of Philippe Pétain. Those deputies that voted against the Constitutional Law were called the The Vichy 80, while 27 others fled the country and were denounced as traitors. Pétain was able to blame the Third Republic for France's failure in the war, claiming that it was corrupt and inherently inefficient. Instead he introduced a Second Constitutional Act (but not a new constitution, which he hoped to introduce once the occupation had ended) which gave him almost absolute power and instituted a far-right political agenda called the Révolution nationale.
De Gaulle couldn't claim the mantle of the Third Republic because nobody had ever voted for him, and his Free French organisation in London was a purely military affair. However, once the French African colonies began to join him, he established the French Committee of National Liberation which acted as a provisional government with the stated aim of restoring the Republic. Alansplodge (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you're wrong that France was the only country which didn't carry on the fight in exile. See Denmark in World War II, where the king and government remained in place, thereby securing a much less oppressive German occupation, most notably protecting their Jewish minority from any restrictions or deportations. Belgium in World War II was a sort of halfway house, because the king signed an armistice without the consent of his government; the king stayed in Brussels while his cabinet escaped to London to form a government-in-exile. The Germans took the view that the king was the government and therefore, Belgium was governed by a civil administrator who used a lighter touch than the military governor in the Netherlands next door, where there had only been a military surrender, and the queen and government had all decamped to England. The somewhat dubious wartime role of the King of the Belgians led to the Royal Question after the war, resulting in his abdication in 1951. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic symbols of the South (unrelated to the Confederacy)

What iconic symbol might be used outside the USA to represent the culture of the U.S. South, e.g. Southern cooking (on a menu)? Must be unrelated to the Confederate flag or other Civil War imagery (Johnny Reb, the Blue and the Gray, etc.). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soul food? Bluegrass music? Mint julep? See also: Culture of the Southern United States. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8D4B:299D:315C:7A9A (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP clarifies: We need a visual symbol, without text. Also no obvious racial stereotypes (Aunt Jemima, Uncle Tom, et al.). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live oak, Mississippi River, New Orleans architecture, Georgia peaches, Churchill Downs (or Kentucky Bluegrass)...--216.15.48.37 (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern live oak (Quercus virginiana) must include Spanish moss. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8D4B:299D:315C:7A9A (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really "the South" as an entity really is inextricably intertwined with slavery. I suppose magnolias and cotton blossoms might be tangential enough and still recognized. Or a Southern belle all dolled up in her farthingale and finery. - Nunh-huh 08:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brunswick stew. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be difficult to find an illustration that's recognizably Brunswick stew. All stews pretty much look alike,,,, - Nunh-huh 08:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The live oak is indeed used as an emblem by a number of organisations, [11] [12] [13] but I'm not sure that non-Americans would be able to identify it as any particular tree. How about a Gone with the Wind style house with a portico like this? Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem here is defining which "The South" we are talking about. Are we talking about the "Ante Bellum South" (roughly 1800 to 1860)... in which case the iconic images all involve slavery (the cotton plantation being the most iconic). Are we talking the "South" of the Confederacy (1860 to 1865) ... in which case the iconic images all involve that war (the Battle flag, Johnny Reb in his tattered grey uniform, Robert E. Lee, etc). Are we talking about the Post Bellum South (roughly 1870s to 1960s) ... in which case the iconic images all involve segregation ("white only" water fountains, Klansmen in hoods, etc.)... or are we talking about the "New South" (1960s to present)... in which case, I don't think there is (yet) an iconic image. Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cotton, perhaps with a few sprinkles of blood. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A partial map of the US, i.e. the (deep) South / Black Belt, may be a recognisable image which carries no racist / historical semantics at a first glance. Of course, it is impossible to separate the economy of this area from slavery and consequences.
It is bit like advertising pork schnitzel with Richard-Wagner-Salad in a kosher restaurant 🤢--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The catfish could be an appropriately neutral symbol. Or the 'possum. Xuxl (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the possum was always the first critter I talked about when describing the fauna of my homeland to my students in China. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Kudzu when describing flora. Like, if there's a WikiProject on the South, I would not consider it vandalism but authentic decoration if someone covered the entire page with File:Kudzu.jpg. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...which brings to mind WP:KUDZU. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the above suggestions, I think the Southern belle is most recognizable. That is, a woman dressed up in that style, carrying a parasol: [14]. Of course, they don't wear those type of outfits these days, except for reenactments, etc.
Note, however, that any iconic representation of a place is bound to bring charges of promoting stereotypes. I am from Detroit, and the positive associations here (cars and Motown) would bring similar charges. The best you can probably do is to pick a stereotype that isn't insulting. So, for the South you would avoid a barefoot redneck and in Detroit you would avoid images of urban decay. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you've heard this oldie about a vacation contest. First prize is a week in Detroit. Second prize is two weeks in Detroit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What ever happened with the statue of RoboCop? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit has a statue that's even worse: The Fist. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
A picture of Scarlett O'Hara would do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Edit conflict. Perhaps a specific Southern belle such as Scarlett O'Hara. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could go with Carol Burnett's version of her, where the dress made from the curtain in the movie still contained the curtain rod: [15], and went with the line "I saw it in the window and I just had to have it !". StuRat (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Jazz - one of the greats, or one of the poster images from the thirties. Wymspen (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jazz isn't exclusively southern. Many jazz artists, like Miles Davis, were not from the south, and others, like Charlie Parker were born there, but spent most of their career in the north. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to to OP's query regarding a visual symbol: how about a classic paddle wheeler showboat? Non-controversial, and evokes a happy mood, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:4c0c:e200:a90e:d475:2878:2440 (talk • contribs)

Steamboats remind me, Mark Twain should be the South's mascot. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about a map of the continental United States differentiating between You Guys and Y'All such as this. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Wadham (died 1412)

Hello, I have submitted a completed draft for John Wadham (died 1412) who was a Justice of the Common Pleas in the reign of Richard II, but I don't know how to take the process any further .... Might you check the draft for me and add it to Wikipedia ? Best wishes, Julian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.81.199 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft can be seen at Draft:John Wadham (died 1412). May I suggest that a better place to ask for help might be the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Also, it might be a really good idea to create a Wikipedia account which makes it easier to talk to other editors and conceals your IP address. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that we have a page especially to help people in your situation? It's Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It will help you register for an account, show you how to get someone to look at your page, and warn you about a scam that you may be exposed to. Matt's talk 00:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But having read that, if you want a real person to help you out, the Teahouse is the place to go. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would they have turned the key?

I've just seen this BBC story from August last year about the Titan Missile Museum which quotes the museum director, a former Titan missile silo crew director, talking about whether she would have triggered Armageddon: “I’m 99.999% sure I would have done it,” she says. “My entire family lives in the foothills of Virginia, about 100 miles south of Washington DC, so by the time I get the launch order if they’re not already dead, they’re going to be dead soon."

Was this ever really tested, in blind conditions? Hayttom (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayttom: Not an answer, but quite interesting, Harold Hering. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite appropriate, but check The Long Watch. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not an exact answer to your question, but the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident suggests that the servicepeople do think carefully before launching things in real conditions. Matt's talk 00:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First public anti smoking campaign

Where was the world's first public anti smoking campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck-graham11 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this counts, but A Counterblaste to Tobacco, was published in London in 1604. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to our Smoking ban article... the first anti-smoking law was promulgated in Mexico in 1575... where the Roman Catholic Church banned the use of tobacco in any church. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the following article: "[the] first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history" was Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A90E:D475:2878:2440 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler made an exception for the smoke caused by the burning of bodies in the death camps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely false.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck-graham11 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 1575 would have been the first anti-smoking campaign, though IP 2606 does at least note "in modern history." However, 1575 is sometimes considered part of the "Early Modern" era.
Because only a brain-dead failure of a subhuman would deny the Holocaust. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the subject at hand: there could be a distinction between law and campaign. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A90E:D475:2878:2440 (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Montreux Convention

This recent story[16] talks about the possibility of NATO members re-flagging their warships to one of the Black Sea States: 

   Non-Black Sea NATO members cannot stay in the Black Sea for more than 21 days, according to the Montreux Convention. NATO has three members with Black Sea ports in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, as well as two more aspiring members in Ukraine and Georgia. Bulgarian, Romanian, Ukrainian and Georgian navies have limited capabilities. Handing over to them some of other NATO members’ warships is an option under consideration. The ships could be reflagged to beef up permanent naval capabilities in the theater.

Is this actually allowed in the Montreux Convention? How does the Montreux Convention determine which nation the warship actually belongs to? Does it look at just the flag of the vessel? Or the citizenship of its crew members? Or the actual chain of command the ship is operating under? Mũeller (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russians are like us

From a Western perspective, Russians are more like us that the Venezuelans or the Gulf States people, Russians are more like part of our family. The Russians are dangerous because they feel treated like the black sheep of the family. Has any scholar taken this position? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a scholar who is not Russian? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mainly a Western scholar, but Russian viewpoints would be interesting, too. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Atlanticism. Russians are opposed to this, not because of "the way the West treats them", but because they believe it threatens their sovereignty and power in what they believe should be their own sphere of influence (as explained in the Russian work Foundations of Geopolitics).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dugin is a crank who is way better known in the West than he is in Russia. 78.53.241.64 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Western obsession with Dugin is a folie a deux in which the left-liberal Trump Derangement syndrome sufferers like to pretend that Russian policy is informed by Dugin because it reinforces their Russophobe stereotypes, and right-wingers like to pretend Russian policy is informed by Dugin because it gives them hope. Seriously, this is a guy who got booted from a provincial agricultural college (so much for being the eminénce grise behind VVP) and who goes on Alex Jones to sell Russia as a last bastion of Christendom to people who, well, watch Alex Jones. 78.53.241.64 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Not quite sure what that apparently-POV comment is even supposed to mean, but the OP can read about Dugin -- who has been active since the 1990s, long before Trump became the US President (why that's even relevant, I don't know) -- for him/herself if desired at Aleksandr Dugin and the links found therein. I brought it up merely as an example to show that Eurasianism exists (regardless of whether Dugin's name is well-known, his ideas are) and competes with the Atlanticism assumptions of the OP.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Count Trubetzkoy, "Europe and Mankind" is a much better exposition of earnest Eurasianism. Dugin is a crank and a LARPer. 78.53.241.64 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you didn't say Eurasianism merely "existed" in your initial comment, you implied "Foundations..." informed Russian policy and that Dugin spoke for all. 78.53.241.64 (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, I already know that Gorbachev dreamed of the Common European Home. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=796362127"