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.

September 10

women working in cable news and at national newspapers

When did women start working at CNN, at The Weather Channel and at USA Today?142.255.69.73 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the first day those companies started operating. There aren't many national companies in the USA since the early 1900s that have been 100% male. CNN's page on the Wiki even states that the first real newscast was hosted by a man and a woman. Nanonic (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of these were launched in the early 80:s, I'm quite certain from the start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for CNN, Mary Alice Williams was one of the principals in getting the network off the ground. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese endonym in Sino-Roman relations

During the centuries of Sino-Roman relations, we have records of the Chinese using exonym for Rome (Daqin) and Byzantium (Fulin) and the Romans calling the Chinese Seres or Sinae. What did the Chinese referred to themselves as in relation to the Roman or Persians? Were any of these uses preserved in Western sources? Were the Chinese aware of the use of the term Seres? 107.193.163.81 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Names of China adequately answer your question? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Indictions Synchronized to Varronian chronology ?

Indictions seem synchronized to the traditional date of the founding of Rome, as given by Varronian chronology. Is this intentional, or merely an unintended coincidence ? (The Roman New Year changed twice, first from March to January, and then later, within the Eastern Roman Empire, from January to September). — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five-year Indictions were introduced by the Roman Senate in the autumn of AD 287, in Diocletian's third or fourth year of reign (as opposed to say, his first), an entire decade before his victory in Egypt in AD 297, and 25 years before Constantine's ascension in AD 312. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The indiction article seems to explain its origins pretty clearly (well, as clear as can be, for something as confusing as indictions). How do you figure they are synchronized to the founding of Rome? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By proleptically extending Indictions back into time, the Varronian date for the founding of Rome in the spring of 753 BC takes places within the first year of an imaginary Indiction, starting in the autumn of 754 BC. By going further back into time, we get the autumn of 5509 BC, marking the epoch of the Byzantine calendar. The latter synchronization is most certainly intentional. I was wondering whether the same holds true of the former. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Age of the Earth according to some Muslims?

Some Jews and some Christians, especially those who interpret the Bible literally, believe that God created everything in 6 literal days between 6,000-10,000 years ago, the latter based on a literal reading of the genealogies in the Bible, in complete contradiction to what science teaches, that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I read that Islamic cosmology is different from the Judeo-Christian cosmology. If so, what do some Muslims believe the age of the Earth and the universe is and from what or where do they base their calculation from? In other words, if I were to ask a Muslim, let’s say in Saudi Arabia, who has never heard about Evolution, the Big Bang, and the established ages of the Earth and the universe; how many years ago would he/she say that God created everything? How old did Muhammad and his followers believe creation was? Willminator (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned contradiction disappears when one takes into consideration the pious patristic tradition according to which time only began to be counted from man's expulsion from Paradise, since his stay in Eden implies eternity, due to God's presence there. Similarly, in Judaism, the reckoning of time begins with the creation of man, the previous five days being part of a so-called year of emptiness (molad tohu). — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and? Not everyone holds those beliefs. Most Young Earth creationists believe that the universe is about six to ten thousand calendar years old, and that all evidence to the contrary is either faked or misinterpreted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and? Ultimately, Christians and Jews are bound to the traditional teachings of Christianity and Judaism, not to `young` earth creationism. If it can be shown that the former are not incompatible with the current scientific measurements, then the existence of alternate ideas is ultimately irrelevant. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does your reply have to do with the question posed? This is not a place for debating our interpretations of religious doctrine. Some members of those religions disagree with you, and the beliefs of said people are an aspect of the question. We don't care what you think about their beliefs. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible. I guess it ultimately depends on how one interprets the question's first paragraph. My point was that, even if one were to take Biblical chronology very literally, it would still not necessarily follow that creation itself is less than ten thousand years old. — 79.113.228.117 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willminator -- I don't know the answer to this, but one difference between the Bible and the Qur'an is that the text of the Hebrew Bible contains tantalizingly almost enough information to add various numbers together to get the ostensible number of years from the creation down to the Persian Empire period, and then you can use your knowledge of history to add to this the number of years from the Persian Empire period down to the present. However there are actually some gaps that have to be extrapolated, in order to do this, and some of the numbers differ between the Greek Septuagint biblical text and the Hebrew Masoretic biblical text.

By contrast, the Qur'an doesn't really contain any detailed internal chronology for events beyond Muhammad's father or grandfather's time; there are no long lists of kings with associated lengths of reigns to add up etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add detail: the Ussher chronology is the "extrapolation" most commonly followed by Christian young Earth creationists. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ussher chronology is the one most well-known among English-speaking Protestants, but I'm not sure there's much else to be said for it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Jewish and Christian scriptures also have sacred status in Islam, though second to the Quran and other sayings attributed to Mohammed. There are Muslim young Earth creationists, though—as in Christianity and Judaism—they're a minority. …if I were to ask a Muslim, let’s say in Saudi Arabia, who has never heard about Evolution, the Big Bang, and the established ages of the Earth and the universe; how many years ago would he/she say that God created everything? Most likely they would say, "I don't know. That is a matter for the religious authorities and scholars." Most Christians and Jews before the modern period would probably have said the same. Plenty of people are fine with not knowing things. After all, "reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of Jewish or Christian scriptures having "sacred status in Islam" could be rather misleading -- the traditional orthodox view is that if anything in Jewish or Christian scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an, then the Jewish or Christian scriptures are ipso facto automatically "corrupted", and that Muslim writings contain everything a Muslim needs to know to attain salvation. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the exposition. My point was that a doctrinaire Muslim may still read some of the Jewish scriptures, particularly the written Torah, which contains the genealogies cited by many Christian and Jewish Young Earth creationists. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no historical theory of a specific age of the Earth that ever gained wide acceptance in Islam in the same way that the ~6,000 year old Earth was widely adopted in parts of Christianity. Perhaps influenced by Christian teachings, some Muslims have reported a similar age, but many others believe it is simply not known. The Quran and associated teachings do indicate that the universe, the Earth, and humanity had a beginning, but when and how that happened is fairly vague. In analogy to the Christian story of Genesis, the Quran tells that the Earth was created in six "days". However, the Quran also directly states that a "day" for God may be far, far longer than a day for man. Furthermore, the Quran also indicates that an act of creation for God need not require constructing a physical object, but could also mean creating conditions that will lead to the object coming into existence at a later time. (In other words, God deserves credit for "creating" television merely by structuring the world in a way that eventually leads to television.) Given these issues, Islam is pretty ambiguous about when and how the Earth was formed. Though not universal, there is a long history in Islam of using observations of the physical world to help inform and interpret religious teachings. In its modern form, many adherents believe that science should be used to understand and interpret questions like "How old is the Earth?" where the Islamic texts do not appear to provide a specific answer. As such, it is pretty common for modern Muslims to accept a timeline for the history of the universe and Earth that is consistent (or very similar) to traditional scientific teachings. Dragons flight (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are stuff like The Atlas of Creation by Adnan Oktar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read that Muslims believe that there were jinns and other beings on Earth before Adam’s creation. Willminator (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nephilim in the bible is something similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Muslims reading the Bible — remember that Islam holds that the Bible's been corrupted from its original form (see Islamic view of the Christian Bible), so Muslims have to read the Bible with a grain of salt if they're not considering conversion. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote that explains this well:

The Qur'an states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions.
The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period.
After completing the Creation, the Qur'an describes that Allah "settled Himself upon the Throne" (57:4) to oversee His work. A distinct point is made to counter the Biblical idea of a day of rest: "We created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us" (50:38).
Allah is never "done" with His work, because the process of creation is ongoing. Each new child who is born, every seed that sprouts into a sapling, every new species that appears on earth, is part of the ongoing process of Allah's creation. "He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then established Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters within the heart of the earth, and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven, and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wherever you may be. And Allah sees well all that you do" (57:4).
The Qur'anic account of creation is in line with modern scientific thought about the development of the universe and life on earth. Muslims acknowledge that life developed over a long period of time, but see Allah's power behind it all. Descriptions of creation in the Qur'an are set in context to remind the readers of Allah's majesty and wisdom. "What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)" (71:13-17).

— Islam Creation Story — Northern Arizona University

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do those Suras in the Quran have the same or different meanings as 2 Peter 3:8 in the Bible? “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” Willminator (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of roads passing through a single point

12 roads passing through same point (with allowance for a rotary since you can't have 12-roads literally continue all the way to the center all on ground level in the car era): Arc de Triomphe, Paris
10 roads: Dupont Circle, Washington
8 roads: ~~rotary at the center of Indianapolis~~ Rotunda da Boavista mentioned by Warofdreams
6: Times Square (but 2 roads are 45th Street, not 42nd)
5: Five Pointses
4: ubiquitous
3: ubiquitous
2: L-shaped intersections
1: lack of intersection
0: lack of road

Does anyone have a proof of existence of other numbers? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about multiple numbered highways occupying the same actual roadway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will count physical roadways. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a road? What if one road changes names at the intersection? Is that two roads or one?

Any of the azimuths from the center (even though we usually think of + shaped intersections as 2 roads when they don't change names) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So each roadway that exits an intersection counts as a "road". How are you handling divided highways? Two roadways or one? Do you want simple intersections, or do you also want to count interchanges and roundabouts? --Jayron 32 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The centerline of parallel(ish) divided highways are counted as one roadway unless there are two(ish) street canyons/tree canyons/etc. canyons or the median is disproportionately wide. Roundabouts are okay, preferably no interchanges but if it's hard to find 9 or 10 etc. without counting roads off ground level then sure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Hampton Roads, which is the "intersection" of a number of rivers and streams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intersection (road) led to Seven Dials in London and Brighton and this article mentions another 7-way in Seattle: [1]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsford, New South Wales has a Nine Ways Roundabout. --Jayron 32 18:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think (if I count right) that Taganskaya Square in Moscow has 11 roadways coming together: [2]. --Jayron 32 18:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Capital Circle in Canberra is a large roundabout, with a bewildering number of roads feeding it; I've not counted though. --Jayron 32 18:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Google Maps, if you only count the inner roundabout, there are only about three. But if you count the outer six-sided "roundabout", it's more like 16. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how many now, but see Seven Corners, Virginia.Naraht (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One note on the initial list: Indianapolis' Monument Circle only has 4 roads leading in/out; the diagonal roads all terminate multiple blocks away (the farthest is sufficiently distant that there's not a regular road-grid square about the circle at its endpoint). — Lomn 21:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting, I learned of it 15 years ago from a pre-1990s magazine and probably remembered wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to two 7-ways myself. One is the Seven Dials traffic circle in London, mentioned above. The other was on rural roads somewhere on the South Island of New Zealand. It was just a plain intersection with straight roads meeting from 7 directions. On Google Maps if you zoom in on the area around Ashburton you will see a lot of straight roads at arbitrary angles, some of them meeting in 5- and 6-way intersections (or intersections that look as if they used to be 5- or 6-ways and were later reengineered into multiple intersections). I think the 7-way was vaguely around there; but that was in 1983, I can't find it on Google Maps now, and I don't remember the exact location. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotunda da Boavista in Porto has eight roads leading off it. Warofdreams talk 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rynek Główny in Kraków has 11 streets, one smaller square and one covered passageway leading to/out of it. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can do this for the railway as well. Pre-Beeching Cambridge had tracks leading to

Bishop's Stortford and London
Ely
Hitchin
Mildenhall
Newmarket
St Ives
Sandy and Oxford
Sudbury

a total of eight. Was this the highest number? 62.49.80.34 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Square train station has lines on Broadway, 7th Avenue, 42nd Street, 41st Street and 8th Avenue (9 ways) but they never quite meet at the same point (~550 foot radius, 200 for 7 out of 9, also some lines pass under others). Maybe Tokyo or Moscow or something has the record? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cross St Pancras in London has fourteen interchanges:

Eurostar to Stratford and Paris
Thameslink to Finsbury Park
Thameslink to West Hampstead
Thameslink to Elephant and Castle
Great Northern to Finsbury Park
Overground to Kilburn
Sub-surface to Baker Street
Sub-surface to Liverpool Street
Northern line tube to Euston
Northern line tube to Bank
Piccadilly line tube to Finsbury Park
Piccadilly line tube to Piccadilly Circus
Victoria line to Brixton
Victoria line to Finsbury Park

The first stop out of the London terminals often has a rural-sounding name:

Bethnal Green (out of Liverpool Street)
Westbourne Park (out of Paddington)
Finsbury Park (out of King's Cross)
Battersea Park (out of Victoria)

Only the last two live up to their promise. 62.49.80.34 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All roads: Rome

220.253.213.181 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try the articles on roads at Magic_Roundabout. I've driven two of them and they were both terrifying. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try it as an American. I based myself in Swindon for several days on my British visit last year and going through the one there several times was ... interesting. I am not sure I improved with practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I drove to Hemel, I was an inexperienced driver, it was rush hour, I was late for a meeting, and needed the loo. When I first saw the sign at the top of Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead), I nearly had two types of accident simultaneously. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with roundabouts and mini-roundabouts, but "magic roundabouts" are a new one on me. In Roman Britain, of course, all roads led to the junction just north of the ford over the River Thames. Bank junction has nine entrances and exits:

Princes Street
Threadneedle Street
Cornhill
Lombard Street
King William Street
Mansion House Street
Mansion House Place
Queen Victoria Street
Poultry

(there are no roads in the City of London). The junction has a rather peculiar daytime traffic management scheme: drivers are not allowed to cross it. When they enter they must take the first exit on the left. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White (European) Slavery not mentioned in your "Jamestown, Virginia" Article.

With the mention of African Slavery in Jamestown (the 1st English Virginia Colony), why isn't there any mention of White (European) Slavery that also occurred there before 1619 AD? I would be happy to contribute to your article(s) within Wikipedia that should reflect this fact with overwhelming evidence. Such evidence will only help to provide more facts for all readers to absorb what really occurred, especially for our younger generation(s).

My compliments to your Wikipedia Projects for providing an open door to only facts/truths and not opinions.Nubianpageants (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery (African or otherwise) is only mentioned once in Jamestown, Virginia, and then once again in History of Jamestown, Virginia (1607–99). In both cases these mentions are accompanied by links to much more thorough articles on the subject. The subject is simply so big that the main article is mostly an overview. But sure, everyone is welcome to edit. A good start would be letting people know on the article's talk page what you intend to add, and what sources you intend to cite. Prior approval is not necessary, but prior discussion sometimes prevents misunderstandings. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that your own books, being self published, would not be permitted as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nubianpageants -- a formal legal framework for slavery in Virginia didn't exist until decades after 1619. See http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been mixed up with Debt bondage-cases and Indentured servitude where (white) people without property signed a labor contract to work off their debt to someone or finance their passage from Europe to the American colonies, which was a common practice. --Kharon (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "white slavery" is not a thing. The structure of Slavery in the United States (and in the Americas in general during the 17th-19th century) is built solely on the racist philosophy that everyone except white people is subhuman, and therefore subject to being owned as property by white people; and furthermore that a state of slavery is incurred because someone is non-white, and that state exists in-perpetuity for all time, even including children born to such people. This is also called chattel slavery, because it treats non-white people as livestock, where the owners of those slaves had the same rights as the owners of livestock. This form of slavery does not exist against white people, it did not then, and it never has. What existed for white people at the time was a form of contract labor, where a service (such as transport to the New World) was paid off not with cash, but with future work from the contracted laborer. This is in no way the same thing, it's a contract of legal equals which is enforced like any contract. White indentured servants had the same rights under the law as any free white person, their state of servitude was only covered by civil contract law, which would be enforced only in the case that they broke the terms of the contract. The idea that this sort of mutually-agreed contract is "white slavery" or is somehow equivalent to the brutal, racist, policies of actual slavery is basically bullshit invented by modern racists like the alt-right movement to justify their historical revisionism, and make their racism seem less problematic. --Jayron 32 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true enough, but the main difference was that the white person would eventually be free. Many people especially boys were taken off the street and sold into bondage in America, they never chose to go. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just that, though. It isn't like the white servants and black slaves lived under the same set of laws and principles during their times in servitude. White people still always had access to legal systems and social systems that protected them and their legal rights. Black slaves had no such rights. I'm also not saying conditions were egalitarian for white servitude. Under modern standards, it may have been a fairly shitty life. But it was orders of magnitude less shitty than that of a black slave. --Jayron 32 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you killed any white person, even if they were your indentured servant, you'd face murder charges. Killed someone else's black slave? Property damage, unless you could argue they were being "uppity." Killed your own black slave? No consequences whatsoever. About the only legal charges that would have applied for slowly torturing a slave to death in the middle of Main Street would have "disturbing the peace" and "littering."

If someone raped a white person, they had to actually to make some kind of legal defense. Raped a slave? Almost encouraged because the slave's owner would get to keep the kids, too. Hell, it was more of a crime to rape animals than it was to rape slaves.

The whole "white slavery" claim is nothing more than a racist canard rooted in a misquotation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time to actually read the slave codes. They were put in place in 1740 in South Carolina. They became the basis for slave codes throughout the entire United States. Also see slavery in the 21st century. This is not an issue of the distant past that belonged to one race of people. It is a modern problem that affects millions of people throughout the world. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White people (whatever your definition of white may be) have been enslaved throughout history, sure, but in the specific context mentioned by the OP, it's just alt-right trolling. I doubt they actually believe it themselves, since their only real position is "owning the libs", and, well, look how big this section is already. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The context matters here. Has a white person, ever in history, even today, ever been enslaved. Yes, absolutely. That fact does not itself abrogate the existence of institutional, racist, slavery that was done upon the entire race of black people by white people, with the justification thereof based on racist philosophies that treated black people as non-people. That really still happened, and the implication, used by the OP and others, that the existence of a white slave would somehow mean all of that racist history didn't happen, or somehow wasn't that bad, or whatever, is what is going on. More to the point, the existence of an unrelated lesser evil does not excuse, erase, or ameliorate a greater evil. --Jayron 32 17:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is one side claiming that whites were legally enslaved in the United States, which is not true. However, the rebuttal is that all slaves were black and all slave owners where white, which is not true. Then, I am concerned with the belief that slavery is a thing of the past. It isn't. It is very active and growing. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rebuttal is not that. The rebuttal is that, as a historical institution, the concept of White Slavery (that White People were enslaved because they were white) is NOT A THING. That is not saying that white people, as individuals, have not been subject to slavery. Also, slavery is a BIG concept. When one says that slavery still exists, that's broadly true, but not helpful towards understanding and responding to the different types of involuntary servitude, and understanding their context, and the appropriate response to it, varies. --Jayron 32 18:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the phrase "white slavery" meant what nowadays would be called trafficking of women and children (see the International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic etc). It's reasonably clear that no significant number of white people (as defined by the one-drop rule) were enslaved in the United States -- even though George Fitzhugh advocated for it, and some abolitionists feared that it was imminently about to happen -- but there was a scattering of individual cases, such as Sally Miller... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but just to counter Jayron32 white slavery could technically be termed as extant in the Ottoman Empire and the barbary states - (https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm) as the desirability (often sexual) of white slaves was explicitly linked to their white skin and was therefore racial in character - Circassian women in the Ottoman Empire fetched the most due to this - so it's wrong to say 'white' slavery (people being enslaved due to their white skin) never existed anywhere. However, obviously indentured servitude in the new world isn't this. VeritasVox (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Asquith and the War Office's three sets of statistics

Asquith is often quoted as saying that the War Office kept three sets of statistics - "One to mislead the public, another to mislead the Cabinet, and the third to mislead itself". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations sources this to Alistair Horne's Price of Glory, published in 1962 (34 years after Asquith's death). Do we have an earlier source for the quotation, or did Horne say where he got it from? DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be in Beaverbrook's Politicians and the War (1928), and since he knew everyone we can doubtless consider that a primary source, whether or not it was Horne's. --Antiquary (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Psychological Operations" a proper noun when talking about the US military?

I've been skimming through the article Psychological Operations (United States), and the term "Psychological Operations" seems to be capitalized a lot throughout the article, but there are also areas where it's not capitalized. And while I don't really know a lot about the topic, I've gained the impression that "Psychological Operations" isn't a specific subdivision of the US military (in contrast to something like the United States Army Special Forces or the United States Navy SEALS, which *are* both specific subdivisions of the US military). Can someone clarify? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a CIA thing. They were going to send exploding cigars to Fidel Castro. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Psychological Operations (United States) lists the the CIA, Army, Navy, and Air Force as all being involved with psychological operations. But if you were to simply state something along the lines of, "The United States Army has units that carry out psychological operations", then you wouldn't capitalize "psychological operations", would you? In order for the word to be considered a proper noun, I feel like it would have to be the name of a specific entity, rather than the description of an activity. --Jpcase (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Army's psychological operations community is getting its name back (November 2017), which says that it's the new name for what was previously called Military Information Support Operations Command. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Thanks for both of those links! I'm not sure that either of them quite clear up the matter though. The Army Times article never capitalizes "psychological operations", but it does capitalize "PSYOP". So...how should we understand that? PSYOP is a proper noun, but psychological operations isn't? PSYOP is just an abbreviation of psychological operations right? So it seems like they ought to use the same rules of capitalization.

With regards to United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, that does count as a proper noun, but USACAPOC only makes up 71% of the PSYOP forces. So PSYOP isn't just another way of referring to USACAPOC. --Jpcase (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that I wasn't fully answering the question, just picking out some of the bones. I think you're right, it isn't a proper noun. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what follows. There are a number of units which are labeled using the term. The first occurrence of term in the Army paragraph has it capitalized contrarily to the first occurence coming in the Navy paragraph. At first sight, it's curious. They are however not considering the same kind of object in both cases. --Askedonty (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: It's still confusing though, haha. Because the name that PSYOP briefly rebranded to (Military Information Support Operations - as noted in the Army Times article) very clearly is a proper noun. So why would the rebranded name be a proper noun, if the original name isn't?

@Askedonty: What are you referring to, when you say "the Army paragraph" and "the Navy paragraph"? Are these paragraphs in a military manual? Again, I don't really know much about the topic.

P.S. I just realized that I've occasionally been writing "pronoun" instead of "proper noun", which was a dumb mistake. I've gone back and corrected this. --Jpcase (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Military is Well-Known for Inappropriate Overcapitalization. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for calling a spade a Manual Excavation Equipment (Portable) ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Four white horses

Did Augustus ever ride a chariot drawn by four white horses? Temerarius (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, white horses were a thing in Roman triumphs. According to this book, Augustus seems not to have used them. --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if i can paint my horses any color i like i bet a roman Emperor easily could too. Anyway, this idea connected to roman culture seem more originated in Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ than in roman history. Atleast roman mythology is not mentioned at all in White horse (mythology). --Kharon (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, when Propertius wrote about Romulus driving four white horses he was inspired by Ben Hur and didn't know his mythology? --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality

Is it possible to see the segment of The Colbert Report when Colbert introduced the word Wikiality? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep (unless geoblocking stops you from seeing this): [3]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway checkpoint near Beijing?

There are widely shared photos and videos of a jam on the G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway at the end of the Chinese national day golden week [4] in October 2015. But a lot of the reports are thoroughly confused. Actually even our article. They talk about a 50 lane highway merging into a 20 lane check point but this is just wrong. It may be the cars have expanded to fill 50 lanes, I've never counted but there is no 50 lane intended anywhere. The toll plaza is 25 lanes and this seems reasonable since the road itself is 4 lanes (one direction).

But the thing which confuses me is that even sources which do a decent job of debunk these myths don't really explain what's happening [5] [6]. These seems to be something going on after the toll plaza more than vehicles simply trying trying to merge back into the 4 lane expressway. Some reports mention a new checkpoint after the toll plaza but I haven't found any which explain what for. (Some seem to conflate the checkpoint with the toll plaza itself.)

These is a blue roof structure after toll plaza but only a small number of vehicles seem to be going through it. (I guess it could be some sort of topup centre for some sort of electronic pass but I'm surprised there are so few using it in that case and it also seems to be weirdly located.) A much larger number are going to the left. But weirdly it looks like there are 2 separate streams. Some to the immediate left of the blue structure. And some in segregated section to the left of this, there's some sort of barrier between them, they eventually merge a while after the blue structure. (It could be that all vehicles going in that part are meant to go through the blue roof structure.)

There's some other structure at the end of the barrier, it sort of looks like a house but I assume this isn't one of those 'property owner refused to sell so let's build the road around them' situations since the barrier only protects them on one side. There's writing on the blue roof structure in the video in the first external link ([7]), but I can't make it out even at high resolution. The location is near Beijing so I assume it isn't some sort of migration control. The blue roof structure etc are visible on Google's satellite view [8]

(In the jam video, some vehicles also seem to be making a u-turn after the toll plaza and heading back down another road but I suspect this may just be vehicles misusing an access road or on ramp.)

Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Half full half empty

Why is this funny? Which psychological mechanism is taking part? Which theory of humor is applicable? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 10:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your questions. Why is what funny – the photo, or the old conundrum to which it refers? --Viennese Waltz 10:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems akin to the concept of signed zero and the intuitive uncomfortableness that that raises. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:55B3:ED87:DFE3:A4F8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP is unfamiliar with the old saw. Here are a couple of variations:

The optimist says it's half full; the pessimist says it's half empty; the efficiency expert says you have 50 percent too much glass.
The answer to half full or half empty is, "It depends on whether you're pouring or drinking."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer the OP to one of the best cartoons by the genius Gary Larson (now retired), detailing the "Four Basic Personality Types" - a |psychological profiling tool that I often usefully employ at Wikipedia. (The image can easily be found via Google Image search). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optimist: This glass is half full

Pessimist: This glass is half empty

Pragmatist: Right, time for another round, who’s buying?

Denialist: I had a full glass a second ago... has someone been drinking my beer?

Feminist: Half-pints are patriarchal oppression!

(we could go on) Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanist: If you want to serve beer in imperial measures, then 51.89% is plainly more than half. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Just to be clear, the basic question of whether a glass is half full or half empty is not meant to be humorous; it's meant to expose whether the respondent is optimistic (optimists are presumed to reply that it is half full) or pessimistic (pessimists are presumed to answer that it's half empty). As you can see from above, this is frequently used as a framework to humourous additions, but the original piece was not meant to be funny. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a rigorous psychological test, either. It's kind of a metaphor. It also reminds me of something Alan Dershowitz said on a TV show about genealogy. He said sometimes the Jewish attitude towards someone who's a mixed-faith product can go either way. If he's thought to be ill-informed, they might say, "Oh, he's only half Jewish." But if he's thought to be very astute, they might say, "He's half Jewish!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently it's to do with how caustic or acidic a politician is. Like for example, I guess, if Jeremy Corbyn's only half as bad as Hitler, etc.?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Half as bad as Hitler" would imply having killed "only" 3 million Jews, as opposed to 6 million. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording often accompanying the "half-full"/"half-empty" terminology is "sees the glass as". Therefore the overall phrase refers to a perspective, which presumably makes sense in the context in which it is used. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It never made sense to me, from the day I first heard it as a nerdy, pedantic, mathematics obsessed teenager. I simply saw half-full and half-empty as different ways of saying precisely the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of numerical measurement, it is. It's not really about that - it's a metaphor about positive or negative attitudes. Like, is something an impediment, or is it an opportunity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right from the start I gathered it wasn't meant to be about precise measurements, but my character at the time could not see another perspective. This WAS half a century ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things we encounter when we're young can take a while to make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it's meant to be funny? I don't find it funny. Just sort of decorative. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two markings is informative depends whether the reader is the barman or the drinker. There is a titillating sense of Paradox in the notion that being half-way through emptying can be indistinguishable from being half-way through filling, which may be called an example of Dialetheism. DroneB (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(The above responses copied from the OP's double-posting at the Misc desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

[9]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article this is from claims it's an example of "Incongruous juxtaposition". ie: We don't intuitively expect "Half full" and "half empty" to both be marked by the same line, and so we're surprised to be reminded that they're the same value stated from different frames of reference.

I disagree. Maybe when the half-full/half-empty idiom was first introduced that was the case, but now that it's a very well-known trope, this bar glass is just engaging in reference humor. Like when a sit-com mentions a pop-culture thing without really saying anything witty about it. ApLundell (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Dr Parodi, "agent of the opposition party in Turkey", First World War

Who was the Dr Parodi, "agent of the opposition party in Turkey", with whom Philip Kerr had a discussion about a possible peace with Turkey? The interview took place in Switzerland on 18th December 1917. Dr Parodi is also described as "head of the Mission Scolaire Egyptienne". DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit more info: Dr. H. Parodi, from: Millman, Brock (22 May 2014). "Pessimism and British War Policy, 1916-1918". Routledge. p. 150. 88. -- which references p. 138 (that page not particularly helpful) —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little more from Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904-1924 by Richard J Popplewell. "Dr Parodi, the director of the Egyptian School at Geneva, had worked for the British since before the war. Leading Egyptian nationalists trusted him." Swiss police allowed him to see papers they had seized from another Eqyptian nationalist (Mansur Rifaat) who had fled Switzerland in August 1914, and he passed the details on to the British Ambassador. He was still working for the British at the end of the War. Google books. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a tantalising glimpse in a search result for "PARODI, Dr. HUMBERT DENIS, Swiss Chemist: born July 8, 1876" in World Biography, Volume 2 (1948), p. 3655. There was a fragmentary mention of Egypt too, but I couldn't tell if it was for his entry or further down the page. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Et voila!

'He relied far more, however, upon a volunteer agent, Dr. Humbert Denis Parodi, a strikingly handsome, dark-skinned Swiss citizen of French and Italian descent, who had worked before the war for the Egyptian government as inspector general of public instruction in Cairo...' The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Jonathan Schneer (p. 254).

'Swiss doctor Humbert Denis Parodi, former government inspectorgeneral of public instruction in Egypt, worked with Binns as “the snoop assigned to the surveillance of Egyptian students in Geneva”.' Germany's Covert War in the Middle East: Espionage, Propaganda and Diplomacy in World War I by Curt Prüfer.

He died in 1953. Philosophy , Volume 9 (1953)

I also found 'PARODI André. Counsellor of Legation, b. Cairo, March 10, 1909. son of Parodi - Humbert Denis and Mathlide Bernard' Who's Who in Switzerland: Including the Principality of Lichtenstein (1952)

Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid work, thank you Alansplodge

. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ropes with elaborate knots

This image has a lot of interesting details, I stumbled on it while editing Boaz and Jachin. My question is, what is the meaning/symbolism of the knotted ropes on both sides of Hiram? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing all the Masonic symbols, see the section 'Knotted Ropes and Cords' in this link [10]. Nanonic (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be it, yes. Unusually Masonic for a church, perhaps? Of course use of symbols will overlap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the church, St John the Baptist's Church, Chester. The window is a memorial to the architect T. M. Lockwood. It's not at all unusual to see Masonic symbolism in glass of that era in Anglican churches. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Abiff was of course the architect of Solomon's Temple, and a central figure in Masonic shenanigans. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, Freemasons originated as a guild of stonemasons -- who built churches and cathedrals. This was back when initiations and esotericism was common in guilds -- which the Freemasons took to the N^th degree (N=32). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble determining the exact type of knot shown in the window. I thought at first it was a double alpine butterfly knot, but that is too complicated. I think maybe its just a figure of eight knot with two of the turns pulled out to form loops, but I can't get the bit of string on my desk to look the same. Can any nodologists out there help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a figure of eight, I think it might be some kind of Turk's Head. I'll have a closer look in a day or two (just about to go out). DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, you might try the (surprisingly active) International Guild of Knot Tyers forum: [11], who might find this knotty problem interesting, —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ... or, try perusing the huge List of knots.[reply]

It’s obviously a secret knot, known only by the Freemasons... if you figure it out, you can control the world. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking love knots per Nanonic's link, but maybe there's more Dan Brown in this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in seriousness, the specific type of knot is not important to Masonic symbolism... so representations will vary from depiction to depiction (and does not have to be something that can be tied in real life).

That's what they want you to believe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The knot's a winged cross knot. Masons have lots of symbolism to knotted ropes (typically a loop with twelve equally-spaced knots - if you pull it into a triangle you get a 3:4:5 triangle and a square corner) but little (AFAIK) to knots themself. They favour the figure eight knot rather than a simple overhand, but I've not seen this winged knot used. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Big-Huge List of knots doesn't include the winged cross knot (as seen here), or even a "basic" cross knot (as seen here). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia calls the basic cross knot a Friendship knot and lists the alternative names as "Chinese cross knot, Japanese crown knot, Square knot (British usage), Success knot, Rustler's knot, Buckaroo knot". A unified system of nomenclature has so far eluded the world of knotting. Perhaps there should be Latin binomials, as in biology. Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge -- closed-loop knots are studied by mathematicians, and have several systems of precise terminology. The worlds of closed-loop knots and open-loop knots seem to have little overlap (e.g. Figure-eight knot vs. Figure-eight knot (mathematics)). AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AnonMoos. Fascinating but completely incomprehensible to me I'm afraid. I've read it twice and I'm still none the wiser. A really useful knot though, but we Britons always say "figure OF eight". [12] Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here it be. It doesn't seem to have the axial symmetry which the window image has, perhaps some artistic licence. I have added this to the friendship knot article. Thanks and well done, Andy Dingley. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk, you gotta love it. Sometimes like a strange form of art/poetry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted crown

How many times have there been not enough (0) claimants to a crown, instead of the typical too many? Temerarius (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating, but I think in some sense, there will always be claimants, like in King Ralph. But there's also cases like Charles XIV John of Sweden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the case of a newly-minted kingdom, like Otto of Greece. --Xuxl (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... some crowns were conferred by election... no one can claim to be Holy Roman Emperor. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

maybe I should have asked instead about times when a successor has refused a crown. Temerarius (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any examples. One could argue per George_I_of_Greece#King_of_the_Hellenes that Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha refused the crown of Greece, but it was probably not really his decision. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some here, perhaps:[13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Frankfurt Parliament offered Frederick William IV the crown of Germany which he refused purportedly because he would not accept "a crown from the gutter" (he was already King of Prussia). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 years later, Henri, Count of Chambord refused the French crown, leading to the establishment of a temporary republic that stuck around until France's defeat in World War II. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia abdicated in favour, not of his son Aleksey, but of his brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, who declined to accept the throne, or at least chose to defer his acceptance until the Russian people's representatives had a say. The monarchy was abolished in the meantime, so the man prematurely proclaimed as "Tsar Michael II" was never actually tsar. See Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia#Abdication of Nicholas II. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Senators, 1894

I've identified four of the seven senators pictured here (the three chessmen that have been taken, and Hill at left), but I'm still missing three names: Boutelle (behind Hill), Blount (right of Lilioukalani), and Willis (right of Blount). I also don't know who Gresham is (man standing behind table). Any ideas? The cartoon dates from 1894, when the 53rd United States Congress was meeting, but these names aren't there: Boutelle is a representative, there's no Blount, the only Willis is Willis Sweet, and Gresham is a representative. Also, is there a senator whose appearance is the basis of the "Senate" chessman (holding the "Senate Investigation" roll) in Uncle Sam's hand? Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Q. Gresham (Judge)
U.S. Commissioner James H. Blount (see also: Blount Report)

—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert S. Willis and Charles A. Boutelle. They all had some involvement in the Hawaiian matter, I gather by looking online at a bio of Gresham.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gresham is likely standing behind the table as Cleveland's Secretary of State (a renegade Republican)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1894, Gresham was Judge of the United States Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was Secretary of State from 1893 to his death in 1895. I can't swear to it, but I think maybe "Senate" is George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, a notable anti-interventionist. But I'd expect him to be on Cleveland's side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... the cartoon is "circa 1894" -- the scenario seems to sugget the Senate investigation was soon to be, or just beginning. The Blount report was submitted in 1893 (while Gresham was still judge?). So, evidence suggests the cartoon was created before 1894. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ←(aka:2606:A000:...)[reply]

It's got to be not earlier than 1893 as Cleveland is plainly president and that is when the Hawaiian overthrow happened. Gresham was sworn in three days after Cleveland's inauguration. This cartoon also suggests "Senate" is Hoar.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) To me, the gist of the cartoon is that the game's "judge" (behind Cleveland) is having second thoughts after seeing Uncle Sam's move (Senate investigation). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though I don't know what the Seventh Circuit (based in Chicago) on which he served would have to do with it and he isn't wearing robes. But given that Gresham was very often referred to as "Judge Gresham" (his clerk, by the way, would also be known as "The Judge", a young fellow named Kenesaw Mountain Landis), you may be right.This cartoon (Hoar depicted at 10 o'clock) also suggests "Senate" is Hoar. If it is, we've identified everyone and we can leave the interpretation for the OP.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they playing with the white corner on the left? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the artist wasn't bothering to be that careful, and may not even have been a chess player: you may also notice that the pieces on the board aren't all centred on squares. The idea of the negotiations as a chess game is adequately conveyed without needing that degree of attention to detail. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the cartoon is January 27, 1894. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! -- the title "Judge" is a red herring. It refers to the verb, not the noun (asking the viewer to "judge"?); and is ~~evidently one in a series~~→[magazine title] by that name from Sackett & Wilhelms Litho Co. Another example:File:Remember_the_Maine!_And_Don't_Forget_the_Starving_Cubans!_-_Victor_Gillam_(cropped).jpg -- more here:[14] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC) ... see also: Victor Gillam[reply]

By the way, drawing a Polynesian with exaggerated African lips is kind of stupid (and I bet a few people even in 1894 would have thought it was stupid). AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few. It was common in the 19th century to characterize Polynesians with racist African features. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate investigation that is "checkmating" Cleveland is most likely that which resulted in the Morgan Report. Although it was not released for month after the cartoon, they probably had a fair idea how it was going to come out, given the composition of the committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how smug and skilled Uncle Sam is and he never noticed the chessboard is turned wrong. Even kids that are just learning the rules are taught "white on right" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what rank "Senate" is supposed to be but unless he is one, there isn't a king on the board.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blount is wearing a crown. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Sam's king is behind his sleeve? Usually chess kings are the tallest piece but this is already a weird set so why not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took Blount for a bishop but if the black chess king is much smaller than the black chess queen, the white king may well be the one we can't entirely see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmm ... have we forgotten that this is just a cartoon? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point but that's what Peter Griffin says after he grinds his body on a 10th or 11th grade girl. (actually "what? It's just a cartoon") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

NTV Kenya

Even though per Religion in Kenya Islam accounts for only 11.1% there (with 84.8% Christians), in this news report the NTV Kenya presenter is in hijab. Why is that? Some regional Islamic office? Brandmeister^talk 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be any other reason than that the newsreader is a Muslim? Here in the UK Islam is only 4.4% of the population and we've had TV presenters wearing a hijab (though not on the news, as far as I can remember). Fgf10 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My second thought was that, but looks quite unusual. Brandmeister^talk 18:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE - see Fatima Manji - "Manji became Britain's first hijab-wearing TV newsreader in March 2016". Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine diplomacy

Byzantine diplomacy doesn’t mention thisand I understand the Byzanines were offended when Nikephoros II Phokas was referred to as Emperor of th Greeks by the West. But how did the Byzantines referred to the Holy Roman Emperors? Did the Byzantine considered the HRE emperors or plain kings? If they did consider them emperors, did they refer to them as emperors of the Germans, Franks or Latins instead of considering them Western Roman Emperors?107.193.163.81 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't refer to them as emperors, because there was only one emperor (in Constantinople), and whatever the western Europeans thought they had couldn't be an empire according to the Byzantine world view. The basileus article talks a bit about how that title was used in diplomacy with the west ("The later German emperors were also conceded the title "basileus of the Franks".") I can't find it in the Greek text at the moment, but as an example, the translation of Nicetas Choniates actually refers to Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, as "king of the Germans". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an easily searchable text of Choniates at the moment, but on at least one occasion he calls Henry VI "krator" of the Germans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically.... -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, technically the HRE is only king of Germany/Italy/Provence until being crowned emperor by the Pope. The Byzantines were presumably aware of that. I know that Arabic sources also typically refer to the HRE as King of the Germans as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Christian writings...

I'm super interested in texts similar to Misopogon and Passing of Peregrinus. That is, non-Christian writings from the first two or three centuries which have somehow survived to this day. I don't mean the famous political texts or histories (Josephus etc) or poetry of the time, but the other stuff like correspondences and satires and so on. I do mean specifically during the rise of Christianity. Can anyone recommend? Temerarius (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenal's 16 Satires (early 2nd century) are written in poetic verse, but otherwise, you might enjoy them. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might try browsing Category: 2nd-century novels and related categories (e.g., A True Story -a satirical novel by Lucian of Samosata). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have, I think, lasting wisdom.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Letters of Pliny the Younger which Wikipedia calls Epistulae. You can read the letters here. Pliny actually mentions the early Christians and efforts to suppress their activities, see Pliny the Younger on Christians. Alansplodge (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Downton Abbey

In Episode 1 of Season 1 of Downton Abbey, one of the butler is seen ironing the morning's newspaper. He goes on to explain that this is done so that the ink completely dries and so does not get on the hands of the reader.

Is this historically accurate? By which I mean, are where any reliable sources attesting that butlers from this period (or earlier) indeed does iron out the newspaper for their clients? Mũeller (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just historical - here is some fairly recent guidance on how to do it. http://www.taryncoxthewife.com/clever-idea-ironing-your-newspaper/ Wymspen (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar scene in The Remains of the Day. It's almost become a trope about English butlers by now. --Xuxl (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downton Abbey is the reason why Britishisms are now creeping into American speech. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'"The only reason we iron them is to keep the print on the paper," Rick says. "You knew that though, didn't you? That's the only reason the papers are ironed."' School for Jeeves by Georgina Pattinson, BBC News. Those of you who remember oil-based newsprint and the resultant grubby hands (before about 1990?) will understand. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unspoken possibility, which Alansplodge's quotation is alluding to, is that the butler might iron the newspaper to conceal the fact that he's already read it himself (thereby creasing it) before handing it on to his employer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Perry in her novel Whited Sepulchres mentions en passant a butler ironing the newspaper for his master. No reason is explicitly given but the context seems to suggest that people of superior taste and manners would not read a newspaper with traces of folding. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Strategic bombers

I was wondering what nuclear bomber crews during the cold war era were to do once they carried out their mission. Were they supposed to just turn around and find an airbase in friendly territory? I recall watching an interview with a RAF Vulcan pilot who suggested he would have kept on flying to Mongolia after bombing his target, or that general direction at least. Were there any large scale contingency plans dealing with the return of strategic bombers and how feasible were they? What did different militaries expect its crews to do after carrying out their mission in a full scale nuclear war. And perhaps also, how much were any of those plans purely for morale of the crews? In the event there surely would have been little to come back to and few to care if one did, but i am curious what the orders and/or plans were. 37.138.236.209 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the date. For the middle period of the Cold War, the main principle was that of Mutually Assured Destruction. Bombers were not there to bomb anyone, but were there so that no-one (on either side) would be bombed. This wasn't a good fit for the operation of manned bombers, and so this was a relatively short period ('60s) before land-based and submarine-launched ICBMs took over this role.

If anyone actually took off to go bombing, the whole situation had failed. The world (or at least, its established government) was over. No-one knew what happened next, but the idea of “Keep flying east, and hope to settle down with a nice warm Mongolian woman.” was certainly a popular one. The idea was to find somewhere isolated, sufficiently to avoid any remaining military forces and also to keep a good distance from the drifting fallout from attacks on major targets. This gives rise to a whole theme of fatalist fiction around this time, Neville Shute's On The Beach being one of the best.

Before this period there had been the idea of fighting a nuclear war against the non-nuclear Soviet bear. There was an early CIA plan for a pre-emptive strike on the USSR in the 1940s. It wasn't proceeded with, because the US (for a surprisingly long time) had no more than half a dozen completed weapons.

Afterwards, from the 1970s onwards, the idea of actually fighting a war in Europe developed. The Soviets developed plans for how a conventional tank-driven advance through Germany could be achieved, later a nuclear version (which seemed oddly focussed on flattening Austria), and the NATO response was to start thinking about small, usable, battlefield nuclear weapons. This was a very dangerous disturbance to MAD and very nearly led to the 1983 war. The Reagan era was one of great hazard, where the first cruise missiles and Pershing II deployed in Europe were a profoundly destabilising influence. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the plan was to bomb the target, starting from a friendly base then return to a friendly base with midair refueling if necessary. It is usual to have an extraction plan in a military operation, even if –the bomber is likely to be shot down before reaching the target, the friendly base will have been nuked, and the refueling plane’s base or carrier will have been destroyed. Having an official extraction plan lets the crew comfort their families and themselves that it is not a definite suicide attack. Edison (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Reddit thread the Mongolian option mentioned by the OP was just a joke: '...in theory there were return routes but (according to Osprey's Vulcan Units of the Cold War) one Squadron Leader suggested that "Your best bet, young man, is to keep on flying east, come down somewhere deep in the country and settle down with a nice Mongolian woman".' Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of adding that i was not sure how tongue in cheek the statement actually was, cannot even recall exactly where i seen it. Now, that there were return routes is surely a given. But any aircraft setting off from the UK, as a random example of a smaller country, will presumably have had no bases to return to, at least within the isles itself. Was that 'triviality' just ignored in such 'flight plans' to give the impression of a potential return and ease of mind? Anyways, thanks for the input so far. 37.138.236.209 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side observation to this topic, I have been told by a military acquaintance that the on-board scenes set on the B52 bomber in Dr Strangelove . . . were procedurally as well as structurally very true to life, more so than any other fictional depiction. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Please help me, Wanna print really exotic looking thing

I'm planning of printing some really exotic and great looking Playing Cards. Can someone here be kind enough to please point to some site where they have (preferably) a variety of really exotic looking fronts and backs of such deck(s) in high resolution - that's a necessity. And yes, I am bothering ye good-guys at RD only after spending quite a lot of time on Google, while there of course got nothing that could suit my purpose. I'm hoping surely one of you may know of any site(s), or at least a couple of digital images of (necessarily high resolution - especially meant for do-it-yourselfers to copy).

P.S.: BTW, recently some wiki-user remarked that my wiki signature (the "Jon Ascton" appearing in dark green colour ) is causing problems (according to that chap it is the fonts within.) Now, he even gave me new wikicode to make adjustments. Please let me know if it's really so ? Please look if the browser you're using is showing any error message etc. when my signature is displayed. Thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]