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.

January 30

Grain races

In the 1920s through the 1940s, sailing ships ran routes known as grain races beginning in south-central South Australia and going round Cape Horn to reach England. If one's trying to reach England from Australia as rapidly as possible (without the undue strain that would likely cost a captain his job), using the strong west-to-east winds of the Roaring Forties, why would one begin in Adelaide or points farther west? I see from the grain race article that some champion routes began at Melbourne or Geelong; why didn't they all do that? Judging by Rail transport in Australia#Milestones, the South Australian and Victorian rail networks met in 1887, which presumably means that Adelaide and Melbourne were connected then or soon afterward: it wouldn't seem hard to transport South Australian grain to Victorian ports by the 1920s. I understand that there wouldn't be a strong economic reason to try to beat other ships, but I don't see why anyone would be shipping grain from South Australia to the UK when it could be transported by rail to the eastern states instead. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grain was exported for a higher price than the price on the domestic market.
Sleigh (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the question as saying "transported by rail to the eastern states and then by ship from there". --76.69.46.228 (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no standard rail gauge in Australia, making shipping grain between states very expensive. See Rail gauge in Australia --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that makes sense; thank you. All I was looking for was the dates of connecting the colonies' railways; I didn't consider other factors. And yes, that was my (poorly expressed) meaning: why ship it directly from SA to the UK when you could transport it by rail from SA to VIC and then ship it from VIC to the UK. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria is further from the Cape of Good Hope.
Sleigh (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they were sailing around South America, not Africa. (Otherwise I would have asked "why Adelaide, not Perth".) The latter route is shorter (per [1], even from Melbourne it's shorter, 12,207 miles to London versus 13,320 miles around Cape Horn), but the strong winds of the Roaring Forties make it much easier to proceed west-east than east-west with a sailing ship. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn is too dangerous. They're sailing round Cape of Good Hope.
Sleigh (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Grain race mentions Cape Horn by name nine times and never uses the words "Hope" or "Africa". Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I wrote was wrong.
Sleigh (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trains are more expensive than ships. There's a rail link from China to Europe, the Eurasian Land Bridge, but it's mostly used for expensive things like computers, for which the extra speed pays off because of high capital cost. 99% of all goods from China to Europe go by ship.

Those windjammers from Autralia to Europe went around Cape Horn, but on the return to Australia they went around Cape of Good Hope, following the clipper route. For the total distance travelled it didn't matter where in Australia they picked up their load. The grain traders preferred loading in South Australia as that would save them an expensive train journey, so these ships were loaded in South Australia. In Europe using the train to get from Cornwall to London made sense, as it may be hard to get a windjammer westbound out of the English Channel.

Grain is a seasonal product that is used year-round, so it has to be stored for months and you can do that just as well while in transit. Grain traders didn't care about speed, only about cost and reliability. They wouldn't pay for the faster trip via East Australian ports. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

Still don't have Pink heart

I see heart emojis are available in red, blue, green, purple, yellow, orange, and black. I see in Emoji 12.0 coming out in March 2019 will have two new heart emoji colors—brown and white. And still won't have pink heart. I should be surprised that we still don't have pink heart giving that pink is one of the main colors for Valentine's. Question is, why we still don't have pink heart emoji? Planet Star 01:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google-image "pink heart emoji" and you'll see a whole bunch of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have pictures of pink heart emoji, why don't we have that on facebook and other social networking sites? Planet Star 06:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Facebook don't make emojis, it was by the organization or maker and distributes to Facebook, other social networking sites like Instagram, and even Android keyboard. Is there's an email address to emoji company? Planet Star 08:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking Christ. No pink heart emojis? Forget Wikipedia, PlanetStar, you need to take this to the streets. Don't even pause to consider a response here, it's time for you to start a grass roots protest. Stop - stop reading these words, they're only slowing you down; now is the time for action. Fight the machine! Burn down the whole fucking world until this grand injustice has been rectified! Go - go at once! Matt Deres (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could request to have pink heart emojis here. Planet Star 08:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or YOU could, since you're the one that wants it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made a detail proposal back in 2018 which included white and brown and pink.

(And I really mean detailed.) [2] You could ask them if they ever heard anything about their other colour proposals or in particular pink. [3] I somewhat doubt they heard much. [4] [5] Note that per these discussion [6] [7] [8] [9], it seems likely a pink heart would also mean a pink square and pink circle. Note that a read of the proposal should disabuse anyone of the notions this this is something that you can just contact someone and expect any real result. I presume the people behind Emoji Request rely in part on voting data to decide which emoji's to make proper proposals for, but the too will have to obey the same rules as everyone else and can't magically make an emoji happen. Nil Einne (talk)

It seems a little bizarre to those of us who have been keeping track of Unicode since the 1990s, but right now the Unicode Consortium has the final say over cross-platform-compatible emojis... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clapham omnibuses

The man on the Clapham omnibus quotes an opinion by Robert Reed, Lord Reed in a 2014 case. Here, Lord Reed discusses the different occupants of the hypothetical omnibus, noting that The most venerable is the reasonable man, who was born during the reign of Victoria but remains in vigorous health. Is he quoting something from somewhere else? Anyone born in the reign of Victoria was 113 years old when this case was decided (not likely to be in vigorous health), but the text doesn't make it sound like he's quoting an earlier author, and Google results all appear to be Wikipedia mirrors or sites analysing this decision. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Reed may have taken a poetic license in reference to a longstanding tool of jurisprudence.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Reed is not referring to an individual, who you rightly point out would have been at least 113 years old at the time he made the observation in 2014. What he's saying is that the concept of the reasonable man on the Clapham 'bus entered English jurisprudence in the Victorian age, and the concept remains just as important (or venerable) today. He's using a metaphor. Lord Reed goes on to say that other passengers now include "the right thinking member of society", "the officious bystander", "the reasonable parent", and others, all derivatives of the original concept. Akld guy (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; I thought it was saying "We may imagine people of these sorts in our hypothetical omnibus", not saying "This idea is venerable and has been around since Victorian times". Nyttend backup (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movements within Judaism that reject Talmud

Have there been any movements within Judaism that reject the Talmud and only accept the Old Testament? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie8447 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite Judaism, although of course they don't call it the "Old Testament" but the "Tanakh" or "Hebrew Bible". Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Talmud, Reform Jews have de-emphasized the Talmud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Ethiopian Jews reject the Talmud as such, but they kind of split off before the Talmud was fully established, and it's not among their traditional authoritative books. The name for Jews who accept the Talmud is basically "Rabbinic Judaism" (sometimes known as "Rabbanites" in the middle ages, a term which was contrasted with "Karaites")... AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Samaritanism is a branch of Judaism then they also reject the Talmud. (Wikipedia treats them as different, but there's also some "a religion is a sect with an army and a navy" stuff going on here). The Samaritan faith is in someways similar to the Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews) as they split from the main branch of Judaism at around the same time, and thus do not recognize the authority of texts like the Talmud. --Jayron 32 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Jew" derives from ancient words which could mean any or all of three things: "Member of the Israelite tribe of Judah", "Inhabitant of the kingdom or region of Judea", or "Adherent of the monotheistic religion which underwent significant reforms under the leadership of various kings and priests at Jerusalem in Judea". The Samaritans don't qualify under any of these three definitions -- they claim to be descended from Israelite tribes other than Judah, they traditionally lived significantly to the north of Judea, and they never recognized the Jerusalem temple (at some periods they had their own temple) or the religious authority of Jerusalem leaders. It's a branch of Israelite religion which has interacted with Judaism in various ways down the centuries, but which doesn't really fall under "Judaism" as traditionally understood... AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If only it were so simple to draw a big black line and say "everyone on this side of it is a Jew, everyone on the other side is not" I've not seriously heard it argued by Jews that Moses, Joshua, Daniel, Isaiah, etc. were somehow not part of their own religion, which was unrelated to Judaism, and yet they all predate the establishment of the word "Jewish" to describe the members of that religion. There is an evolution between the religion of the ancient Israelite people and modern Judaism, but that evolution did not create a new religion out of whole cloth when the word "Jewish" got first applied to that religion. The perspective that you have works, and is common, but cannot be considered exclusive of other valid definitions of the Jewish faith... --Jayron 32 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, no one has mentioned Messianic Judaism, whose adherents at least consider themselves Jewish, and which I am fairly confident does not accept the Talmud. --Trovatore (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a modern American equivalent being maybe "a good Communist" or "a good undocumented immigrant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drop by your local used book store and see if they have a copy of The Tragedy of the Moon by Isaac Asimov and read the essay "Lost in Non-Translation". --Khajidha (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize it in 25 words or less? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People don’t understand these parables because “Samaritan” and “Moabite” mean nothing to them, instead of meaning “hated outsider” --Khajidha (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, considering that Asimov wrote an annotated version of the Bible. And, as I said, it's like saying "a good Communist", to put it in a more modern context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more nuanced than that. The 1st Century AD Jewish person would have understood the Samaritans to be not just a bad person, or a foreigner, but something akin to an apostate. The Samaritans are an Israelite faith that practiced a different form of the same religious tradition that the mainline Jewish people of the day would have considered a corruption of the faith. It wouldn't have been like a foreigner or an unknown boogie man, it was a people who should have known better but decided to be unfaithful from their point of view. There's a nuance in the exact kind of distaste the 1st century Jewish person would have had towards a Samaritan that is entirely unlike anything a modern, secularist American (even a religious one) would entirely understand. Hence the "lost in non-translation". There almost is no modern equivalent for a westerner. --Jayron 32 18:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My church minister used to use the "good Communist" analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I've seen that same attitude from various Protestant groups towards Catholics (and vice versa). And from both Protestants and Catholics towards Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have an intense and probably irrational disdain for all other Christian denominations. Akld guy (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not limited to JW's, though. And I'm reminded of this line from a Tom Lehrer song: "Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants / and the Protestants hate the Catholics / and the Hindus hate the Moslems / and everybody hates the Jews!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) True, except the level of distaste Jewish people felt towards non-Jews is compounded by the sort of Rutual purity laws not present in Christianity, such people were not just foreign and apostate, they were also unclean. That's why Asimov says there is no equivalent feeling a modern American would have. The nuance is something particular to that cultural relationship. It has only poor analogues in American life. So maybe "How a protestant person would feel towards a communist, catholic person with the flu" or something like that. But probably not even. In the Bible, the Good Samaritan story presumes knowledge of these sorts of attitudes in a visceral way. Jesus was telling the story to a Pharisee and so doesn't need to explain who a Samaritan is; the Pharisee will have the visceral response that Jesus intends, which is why he chose that specific ethnic group. Furthermore, the intended audience of the Gospel of Luke would have been his own first-century contemporaries. The context would have been evident to the original audience, and need no exposition. Compare as well to stories like the Samaritan woman at the well, which makes the context more evident in the exposition. The obvious shock and surprise of the Woman herself, as well as the disciples present, lets you know how out-of-place it would have been for a Jew, like Jesus, to be casually asking for a drink of water from a Samaritan woman. The fact that the author of the Gospel of John spends more time on exposition is probably because some of the context would have been lost on the audience; the Gospel of John was written probably around 100AD, so well after the Destruction of the Temple and the great Jewish diaspora would have disrupted normal Jewish life; as well it was probably written outside of Israel and written thus for an audience which may have not had the cultural knowledge of that region. --Jayron 32 20:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no exact equivalent to what a Samaritan was, but the term has totally lost its context, and has come to mean someone who's good. For a modern corollary, we have to consider anyone that a narrow-minded subset of Christians would consider something akin to "unclean" - something that would evoke repulsion, as the Samaritans did in Jesus' time. That could be a Communist, a Jihadist, a non-heterosexual, or any number of other categories - whatever would mean the most to the target audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial quotation of Asimov's words: " “The trouble is that the one word that is NOT translated in the Book of Ruth is the key word “Moabite,” and as long as it is not translated, the point is lost, it is lost in non-translation. The word Moabite [from Ruth’s tale – it also applies for the word Samaritan – ed.] really means “someone of a group that receives from us and deserves from us nothing but hatred and contempt.” How should this word be translated into a single word that means the same thing to, say, many modern Greeks? Why, “Turk.” And to many modern Turks? Why, “Greek.”…[Snip – ed.] … We forget the point of the parable is entirely vitiated by the common phrase “good” Samaritan for that has cast a false light on who the Samaritans were. . . To the Jews [of Jesus’ time – ed.] the Samaritans were not good. They were hated, despised, contemptible heretics with whom no good Jew would have anything to do. Again, the whole point is lost through non-translation. … [Snip – ed.] … The Parable of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches that there is nothing parochial in the concept “neighbor,” that you cannot confine your decency to your own group and your own kind. All mankind, right down to those those you most despise are your neighbors.”Source : Pages 266-270, Isaac Asimov, “Lost in Non-translation” in ‘Magic’ anthology Harper-Collins, 1996.--Khajidha (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Jayron 32 12:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Druze and the Yazidis are apostates in Muslim eyes, but not being an apostate does not guarantee freedom from persecution - see Asia Bibi blasphemy case. The clue for a three-letter prophet's name in the December issue of Al Jame'ah, produced by Jame'ah Riyadul 'Uloom, is "He propagated Islam for nine-hundred and fifty years". From Genesis 5 vv 3-4 I surmise this is a reference to Adam. 2A00:23C1:3182:5700:9B4:670C:8CCF:DAC (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

Phlegon of Tralles` Book of Marvels

Dear All

I am looking for the online version of the book "Book of Marvels" by the ancient Greek author Phlegon of Tralles. The translation can be English, German or French, I speak most of these languages at least rudimentary. If you have links to the translations of ancient or medieval ghost stories, I would also be very pleased to read them!

Thank you very much for your answers--2A02:1205:505D:1BB0:98D8:48B0:9FDD:D8CD (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your second question: Ghost_story#Early_examples lists several ancient (Roman) and medieval (Arabic and Japanese) examples. If you follow the wikilinks to the individual stories mentioned there, there is often a translation in the “External Links” section. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of which books, movies, music and video games are in the public domain

Dear All

I require a list which lists most books, movies and video games which are in the public domain. I am asking for the list because I was (for example) wondering if "World of A-Null" by A. E. Van Vogt and "Galactic Patrol" by E. E. "Doc" Smith were in the public domain. A list would simplify my ongoing search. I am asking this question here instead of the entertainment thread because the question seems more a question for historians than for pop culture aficionados.

Thank you!--2A02:1205:505D:1BB0:98D8:48B0:9FDD:D8CD (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC): See List of countries' copyright lengths[reply]

See List of countries' copyright lengths. In general, whether something is still in copyright depends on the country where you are (not where the author was) and the date of death of the author. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can search in the Internet Archive. If it is there, it may be in the public domain. If not, it may be because it is not. Beware that people has uploaded copyrighted material. Use heuristics such as if the uploader is a library, it is more probable that they checked the book status. --Error (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list would be impractically long and, as noted, country-dependent. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those books you mention are almost certainly still in copyright, at least in the US. They were written in the 1940s by well known authors, the type who would have had literary agents staying on top of the renewal dates that would have come up in the 1970s give or take. It's very hard to say for sure that a copyright was allowed to lapse, too. Even if no renewal record can be found, something but come out of the woodwork later. See some of the publications about orphan work for issues related to this. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Sphere Books 1971 edition of The World of Null-A gives the copyright as

Introduction © A. E. Van Vogt 1970":

it had originally been serialised in Astounding Stories magazine (then published by Street & Smith) in 1945, and appeared in book form from Simon & Schuster in 1948.

The Panther 1972 edition of Galactic Patrol gives

"Copyright Street & Smith Publications Inc. 1937

Copyright Edward E Smith PhD 1950".

1937 marked its first magazine publication, in Astounding, while 1950 was its first book publication, by Fantasy Press. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Norway Constitution

Please,Can someone provide me with an english translation of norway constitution..?(a pdf or something).Thank you.google disappointed me today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DivandyaSM (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Henry ^Flower 07:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nasha Rech, no. 2, 17 (30) Nov 1917?

Anyone who knows if the 17 (30) November issue of the Russian newspaper Nasha Rech (Rech (newspaper)) is available online somewhere? --Soman (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

What is the word used for when you are from country X and get stuff from country X?

There is the word import for when an country X get something from country Y. What is the word used for when you are from country X and get stuff from country X? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.197.136.196 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic spending is what you’re looking for, assuming that by “get stuff” you mean “buy goods and services”. I’ll put in a dab page to fix the redlink. If you are more specific about who and what does the buying, there’s Consumption (economics), Investment (macroeconomics), and government spending. Loraof (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ship is the word for the movement of goods internal to a country, even when a ship is not the medium. Example: "I just bought a piano on an auction site and it's being shipped east to me by rail next week". Akld guy (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To import means to carry in, and to export means to carry out. If it's neither one, to port might work, though I've never heard it used that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To ship by something other than an actual ship is apparently an American invention, in the mid-19th century.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is, Bugs, ... ? --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ship would often be understood outside America, but might sound odd when delivery is not by water. Dbfirs 22:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A counterblast to the frequent claim that American English preserves the original spelling and pronunciation of words, and that it is other Englishes, including English English, that have strayed from the one true path. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I've never heard that general claim, though it is true of a small number of older English words where the older (now just dialect) word has been retained in American English. Webster was responsible for most of the spelling differences, of course. The first recorded usage of "ship" for general transport is in Harper's Magazine of September 1857, but the verb to ship (by ship) goes back to Anglo-Saxon ("Se micla here..wurdon gescipode") around AD900. ( I don't think American has retained that spelling! ) Dbfirs 22:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buying local would be a similar sentiment. And for Luxembourg or Lichtenstein, it would be synonymous ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

Were there any other countries where the Communists supported ethnic federalization?

I know that the Communists who were in charge of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia largely supported ethnic federalization--which is why they partitioned their countries into various federal units in large part based on ethnic lines. (This also helps explain why these countries broke up after the fall of Communism in these countries.)

Meanwhile, my question here is this--were and/or are there any other countries where the Communist Party (of these countries) either supported (in the past) or currently supports ethnic federalization along the lines of what the Communists previously did in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia? If so, which countries have Communist parties who currently advocate in favor of this or who have advocated in favor of this in the past? Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- I think that in Yugoslavia, the federalism arose naturally from the history and the ethnic identities of the people living there, and was not mainly due to any centralized plan or ideology handed down from Moscow (and Yugoslavia quite quickly started to differentiate itself from Moscow after WW2). -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of this ethnic federalization preceded the Communists; for instance, the Cvetković–Maček Agreement for an autonomous Croatia within Yugoslavia. Still, the Yugoslav Communists appear to have continued this process and created either federal or autonomous units for the various other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia as well. Maybe it would have been better if Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been divided based on ethnic lines by the Yugoslav authorities, though; that way, maybe the bloodshed of the 1990s there would have been avoided. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China has "autonomous regions" in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Tibet, for whatever that's worth (nowadays it seems to mean even less than ever before...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that isn't quite when I'm looking for. I mean, it's certainly interesting, but China is still a unitary state whereas I want national Communist parties which advocate in favor of ethnic federalization. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Stalin was the nationalities commissar from 1917 to 1923, and thought he was quite the authority on the subject... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Indeed, Stalin was the one who created separate SSRs for both the Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz in 1936. Before 1936, both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were autonomous parts of the Russian SFSR, if I recall correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easily answerable question, since we have a limited number of Communist countries in all of history, we just have to check all of them and see which ones meet the OP's criteria. It doesn't actually require any guessing, or even deep research. Wikipedia has an article titled List of socialist states, which has a subsection on current and former Marxist-Leninist socialist states. Just check each one, see which ones meet your requirements for a federal state divided on ethnic lines. --Jayron 32 12:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was also curious about countries where the Communists advocated ethnic federalization and yet never came to power. Futurist110 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the premise is wrong, or at least questionable. Communism has a strong internationalist background - see Communist International. The Communist manifesto famously says Workers of the world, unite! (or in the original, "Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!"). Federalization was an intermediate step to combine existing ethnic states (or groups) into a larger superstate, not an end in itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to control that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More like When life gives you lemons... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Hebrews by Pagans

This file has been used on 10 pages (fortunately not on en.wikipedia.org) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Execution_of_Hebrews_by_Pagans.jpg

Does someone know who are these Pagans and how does it come that the picture is used to illustrate articles about the Crusades ? I'm afraid it has nothing to do with this historical event.

Christians persecuted Jews during the Crusades ; at what time did "Pagans" persecute Jews ?

Thank you for your answer.--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:C049:B449:EA17:28A4 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- based on a quick internet search, it appears that the picture has been mis-named. It should say "crusaders" rather than "pagans", refering to the Rhineland massacres of Jews by crusaders in 1096. But I did not find a source for the image itself, where it's from or what date. - Epinoia (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Spanish Wikipedia, it indicates massacre by the Crusaders.[11] More info on Crusaders killing Jews is in Rhineland massacres. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked the original uploader, but he didn't have much info.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image page claims that it's from a bible moralisée from the year 1250, which suggests that it might be specifically "Codex Vindobonensis 2554". It looks like you can view it in person if you go to Vienna, but I haven't been able to find a digitized version online.

I'm sort of skeptical that an image from the Crusades would be found in a Bible. You'd think that they would show actual Bible stories. But it's a question very far outside my expertise.

If it is a Bible story, can we figure out which one? Seems to be after the crucifixion, if I'm correct that the figure in the upper left is Jesus. The two sword-wielders seem to be wearing crowns, and the figure in the lower left (who seems to be awaiting execution, or perhaps begging for the lives of the victims?) is apparently a saint. Something from Acts? I'm drawing a blank. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching tineye for the earliest results, it seems the earliest non-wikipedia link might be this book written by this professor. I can't see a picture credit in the front matter but you might ask her for her source. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed from the Crusades I would be interested to understand what is actually going on. I can't work out how it makes sense, assuming that it's meant to be approving of the Crusades. There seems to be a parallelism among the four kneeling figures, and one of them clearly has a halo, and the front two appear to be about to lose their heads. Unless the swordsmen are actually about to behead the guy in the gray cap? But that seems like overkill, and he doesn't appear concerned at all, just thoughtful. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could theoretically be an illustration of "Execution of Hebrews by Pagans" if it's an illuminated initial from a manuscript of the Book of Maccabees. I don't know how probable that really is... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Vindobonensis 2554 is indeed online but I don't see this image in there. It definitely looks like a Bible moralisée though. I'm sure this has come up before, maybe not on the RD but in some crusade-related article, where it was argued that these are Jews (wearing Jewish hats). Maybe Medieval Twitter can help... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, Medieval Twitter knows all - it is BNF MS Latin 11560, f. 6r. An illustration from the Psalms. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great sleuthing! So which Psalm? Is it Nebuchadnezzar attacking Jerusalem? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be the start of Psalm 16 to the left of the image (Oratio David. Exaudi, Domine, justitiam meam; intende deprecationem meam.) and the start of Psalm 17 at the top of the second column. But in between doesn't seem to me to match Psalm 16. The images may refer to the commentary. Part of one section near the image seems to say "...justicium suam et ut liberetur ab infidiis iudeox. et rogat ut deus pater retribuat iudeis nequitua eox ut perdam locu et gentem pro quibi..." The words I missed at the beginning and end could change the meaning. Rmhermen (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I also came up with Psalm 16 but then couldn't make it fit. Very hard to read the fraktur text with odd linebreaks.

So is it still consistent with having a picture of the Crusades? I don't understand the Bible moralisée idea well enough to be sure. But on any theory it's a hard picture to figure out what's happening. (I suppose the thing I'm calling a halo could be a "Jewish hat" seen from below, but to me it really still looks like a halo, especially counterposed with the cruciform halo above Jesus's head.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that section is a quote from Psalm 16 (or 17 depending your Bible tradition). The rest of the text is not from a Psalm, it says: "Precatur, Christe, non pro sua utilitate sed pro nostro negocio, quia oratio Christi stabilimentum est fidelium. Orat ergo ut reddatur ei secundum iusticiam suam et ut liberetur ab infidiis iudeorum, et rogat ut deus pater retribuat iudeis nequitiam eorum ut perdant locum et gentem pro quibus retinendis occiderunt Christum." Basically, pray that the Jews will be punished for killing Christ, for their wickedness, etc. So it's a re-imagining of Psalm 16/17, where David asks to be saved from his enemies, among other things.

The people being attacked are wearing Judenhuts (maybe), so presumably they're Jews, being attacked by a king, presumably Louis IX of France since this Bible was produced during his reign. He was certainly not a friend to the Jews of France. The Disputation of Paris took place in 1240, around the same time this Bible was made. Eventually, his grandson Philip IV expelled all the Jews from France in 1306, but there were other expulsions that took place during Louis' reign (they were expelled from Brittany in 1236, for example). This Bible was produced before Louis went on crusade, but whenever there was a crusade movement in the 12th and 13th centuries, it was always accompanied by attacks on Jewish communities. There were the famous Rhineland massacres on the First Crusade, but similar events happened on every other crusade, including the Barons' Crusade, also in 1236. During Louis' crusade, he was taken prisoner in 1250. When news reached France, there was a "Shepherds' Crusade", which, of course, blamed local French Jews for Louis being captured by Muslims in Egypt.

So, it's probably not a depiction of the Rhineland massacres, as is being claimed on other Wikipedias (and, as I mentioned, I'm sure this image has been discussed before on English Wikipedia, so it was probably being used here at some point as well). But it looks like it's a reimagining of King David as King Louis, praying for protection from his enemies, who were reimagined as the Jews, even though David was Jewish! Attacks on Jewish communities would be fresh in everyone's mind and everyone would have agreed that the Jews were the enemy of the very saintly and Christian King Louis.

The Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes has a lengthy bibliography of works mentioning this manuscript. Some of them look like they might discuss this image in particular. Another useful source not listed there is ""Kingship and Crusade in the First Four Moralized Bibles" by Cecilia Gaposchkin (a chapter in The Capetian Century, 1214-1314, ed. J. R. Phillips and W.C. Jordan, p. 71-112). I haven't had a chance to read that yet but I'm sure she talks about this. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory (?) information on Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

In History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Eleventh edition, 1910, it says: "The renowned eleventh edition of Encyclopædia Britannica was begun in 1903, and published in 1910–1911". In the second paragraph of that same section, it is stated that "it was licensed to Sears Roebuck and Co. of Chicago who issued a physically smaller but complete version known as the "handy edition,"" and that this edition "was successful in 1915–1916". However, as opposed to this, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.#Sears Roebuck states: "In 1920, the trademark and publication rights were sold to Sears Roebuck, which held them until 1943" (cf. correspondingly Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition as well as Encyclopædia Britannica#1901–1973: "When Hooper fell into financial difficulties, the Britannica was managed by Sears Roebuck for 18 years (1920–1923, 1928–1943).").—Now which is correct?

Moreover, in Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.#Sears Roebuck, it says: "By the mid-1930s, the company headquarters had moved to Chicago". This in turn seems to be in contradiction with the relevant passage in History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Twelfth and thirteenth editions (competing supplements to the eleventh): "The CEO of Sears Roebuck, philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, was devoted to the mission of the Britannica and bought its rights on 24 February 1920 from his friend Horace Everett Hooper for $1.25 million. The Britannica's headquarters were moved to Chicago, where they have remained. In 1922 [...]"—Can anybody help resolve this confusion?--Hildeoc (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your first paragraph, there's nothing necessarily contradictory between Sears publishing a special Britannica edition with permission in 1915–1916, but only acquiring Britannica as a whole a few years later... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per AnonMoos, there are different things happening in different years. In 1915-1916, Sears paid for a license to publish their own edition; that would have been a single use license, just to make a single edition. In 1920, the publication rights as a whole were sold to Sears, which means they would have had the full rights to publish as they saw fit. They had those rights, according to the text you quoted, between 1920-1943. You'll notice that the "Mid 1930s" falls within that range. So no contradiction. Also, the headquarters of Sears is different than the headquarters of Britannica. They are still independent companies which have a relationship: Britannica creates the encyclopedia (does research, writes text, etc.) and Sears publishes and distributes it (edits it down into different sized editions, binds, prints, markets, and sells it). There's no reason they have to be in the same city at the same time. Though, Britannica appears to have moved their headquarters to Chicago at some point, (I speculate) to be closer physically to their largest business partners. --Jayron 32 17:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in identifying a painting

Hello. I'm trying to find the name and author of a painting used as the cover of a classical music CD (Bach's Trauerode, conducted by Philippe Herreweghe, published by Harmonia Mundi), but no luck. Here it is. It looks like a Flemish painting. Would someone know more about it? Thanks in advance. 81.11.163.30 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the right side panel of Gerard David's Baptism of Christ. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! 81.11.163.30 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

Mesopotamian campaign before Ctesiphon

Mesopotamian campaign#1915 has a brief paragraph with comments on British strategic goals prior to the strategic defeat at Ctesiphon. In short, it was possible that Townshend's force would have advanced north to Baghdad (or merely Kut) and then abandoned it. However, Logistically, his advance was very difficult to sustain, but it was sustained, and obviously this plan was at least partly abandoned, since Townshend kept going past Kut. Had Ctesiphon been an imperial victory, like previous battles in the campaign, what would have been attempted next — going to Baghdad and just staying, going to Baghdad and retreating to Basra, going to Baghdad and continuing northwest, or what? Not WP:BALL; I assume the Imperial General Staff was planning this out (and that's what I'm asking about), especially as there hadn't been any comparable tactical or strategic defeats in the campaign to this point. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Townshend wrote a book about this very incident and you might find the answer in there. In the introduction, he begins by laying out his strategic goals for holding Kut in the first place: providing a choke point on the Tigris and Hai to block the advance of the 6th Turkish Army, and by so blocking them, buying time for Nixon to gather a bigger force at Amarah and decide where to deploy it. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many years worth of food meant for people is in the world?

It varies by season I'm sure. Does it matter much if the food content of growing crops and live farm animals count? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent FAO "Food Outlook" report, found here, gives charts showing the amount of global food stocks in million tonnes for wheat, grains, rice, oilcrops, sugar, meat, milk and fish. Figures are also given for how much is used for food, feed, etc, and how many kg are used per person each year, so you can make calculations depending on which food area you are interested in. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative, thanks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a very interesting read! 93.136.72.52 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

Statue of Rafi Ahmed KidwaiShipraAbr (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The statue of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Indian freedom fighter and politician, was originally placed at Rafi Marg in Delhi and later relocated inside Krishi Bhawan. What is the reason behind it?

Is life alive?

Persononthinternet (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]