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.

October 12

The famous opera singer Sibyl Knight

Various biographical sketches and articles about the prog rock vocalist Annie Haslam mention that Haslam at one time studied voice under the famous opera singer Sibyl Knight (that would have been in the late 1960s). However, all my web searching about Sibyl Knight find either non-singers of the same name, or else mentioning her in the context of Annie Haslam studying with her. It seems like Annie Haslam's fame has eclipsed Sibyl Knight's.

So who was the famous opera singer Sibyl Knight? Are there particular roles etc. that she was known for? Any suggestions about finding more info? Thanks.

67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I found, and you hadn't mentioned yet, is that the singing teacher Harold Miller (no article, but he had also instructed Shirley Bassey and Julie Andrews) was the one who had recommended Sybil Knight to Haslam. She had first wanted to take lessons from Miller, who said: "'I wish I could teach you, but I only teach in the daytime.' But he said, 'I have a lady called Sybil Knight and she’s an opera singer and she teaches in the West End.'" (From an interview with Pop Culture Classics). Combined searches of "Harold Miller" and "Sybil Knight" only yielded more bits and pieces on Haslam. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had heard the Harold Miller story but hadn't seen the Pop Culture Classics interview, which is wonderful. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Arabic language come to Iraq and started to be spoken as the main language?

When did the Arabic language come to Iraq and started to be spoken as the main language? As I read, the main language in the past was Aramaic. But I don't remember when the Arabic push out the Aramaic. I found this article on Wikipedia which mentions what I said about the Aramaic but ignores the time when Arabic became the dominant language.93.126.116.89 (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the region now called "Iraq" was called other names in the past. Any time you see super-straight lines in borders, it's because Europe was slicing a region up for themselves like pie.

Most of what is now Iraq used to be part of the broader Persian Empire. When the Rashidun Caliphate started conquering the Persian empire, they took over what is now Iraq first. The shift from Aramaic to Arabic would not have been overnight, however. You really can't say "this is when people stopped speaking Aramaic and started speaking Arabic. Instead, Persia took centuries to become majority Muslim, and even after it did, many Persians (including non-Arab Muslims) rejected Arabization -- and that was in a major cultural center. Now, granted, that's mostly in modern Iran, not modern Iraq, which the Persians kinda viewed as the boonies? That changed with the Abbasid Caliphate moving the capital to Baghdad, though. However, the region was culturally diverse, with plenty of people speaking Armenian, Syriac, Turkish, and various Kurdish dialects well into the late 20th century. So that makes it a matter of "what do you mean dominant?" If you mean the language that the government speaks, then yeah, when the Abbasids moved to Baghdad is a pretty good date. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great explanation. Thank you! 93.126.116.89 (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ground was prepared for the spread of the Arabic language as the new lingua franca of the Fertile Crescent zone by the fact that the related Aramaic language had been the old lingua franca of the Fertile Crescent zone. The process took several centuries, and there are still a few remnant areas of Aramaic speakers, but Arabic seems to have replaced Aramaic fairly smoothly in the most densely populated and economically important areas... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When did Paris first get electric lights?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean street lights: "On 30 May 1878, the first electric street lights in Paris were installed on the avenue de l'Opera and the Place d'Etoile, around the Arc de Triomphe, to celebrate the opening of the Paris Universal Exposition. In 1881, to coincide with the Paris International Exposition of Electricity, street lights were installed on the major boulevards." (from Street_light#Arc_lamps, sourced). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian (emperor) reference problem (done)

Does anybody around have an idea how to fix this reference on Roman emperor Julian? (Thanks in advance for any assistance.)--Hildeoc (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't enough of a ref to even figure out what they were going for, so I deleted it. There is another ref there, anyway. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Just look through revision history if that happens again. Removing sources is not advised. The remaining source may not cite the existing collection of facts.KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SinisterLefty and KAVEBEAR: Thank you both very, very much for fixing that! All the best--Hildeoc (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Assassination of Jiaqing Emperor

The article on says Jiaqing Emperor: “Members of the Qing imperial family tried to assassinate him twice – in 1803 and in 1813. The princes involved in the attempts on his life were executed. Other members of the imperial family, numbering in the hundreds, were sent into exile.” All three sources (most are 19th century European accounts too) don’t mentions the names of the the princes involved or the ones who were executed or exiled. Who are these princes or relative who were trying to assassinate Jiaqing? KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Chinese article, which admittedly I'm guessing here from a machine translation, the 1803 attempt was a lone assassin named Chen De (陳德), and the second was a group of around 200 led by Lin Qing (林清). Neither is mentioned as a prince, but maybe the Chinese sources have more information. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading Modern Chinese History by Zhu Weizheng (p. 102) has the 1803 attempt committed by "some men brandishing knives... These people were connected to Chen De, who had been the house slave of a bannerman in the Imperial Household". It goes on to say that a commission of inquiry failed to find any high-ranking person behind the plot and that those directly responsible were sentenced to a "lingering death". Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article about the 1813 event called Eight Trigrams uprising of 1813 which says; "Leaders: Lin Qing (林清; 1770–1813) was a hustler who drifted between odd jobs before taking over a local White Lotus sect". So neither were princes or anything like. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between job and occupation?

What is the difference between a job and an occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.70.2 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Wiktionary's pages on job and occupation, a job is a task that you have been given, or taken upon yourself to complete - consider the phrase, "I have a job for you." A regular, paying job is an occupation. It is thus accurate to refer to a regular paying job using either word. Although, anything that regularly occupies your time might also be considered an occupation, even if it does not pay (consider occupation:student). Someguy1221 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is the level of prestige. A job is lower than an occupation, which is lower than a career. That's why a heroic firefighter (eg) who is performing humility says "I was only doing my job" rather than "I was only occupying my occupation" or "I was only enacting my career." None of the three necessarily pay, though a 'career' referenced to which doesn't pay is more highly metaphorical. An occupation can also be a value judgement on whatever thing: "They had an occupation with quilting while pointedly avoiding their spouse." It can have an expansive meaning, cf this bit from Crime and Punishment, that expands the meaning for humorous effect: “You shouldn't have gone murdering people with a hatchet; that's no occupation for a gentleman.” Temerarius (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a firefighter were to actually say "I was only occupying my occupation" or "I was only enacting my career", they would probably be considered very strange. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say an occupation is what you do for a living (e.g. you're a hairdresser, something that describes a category of people), while a job more specifically yours (you are a hairdresser at Jane's Hair Salon on 45th Street). Donald Trump's current occupation is "politician" but his job (such as it is) is POTUS. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Added: "job" implies somebody else is paying you to show up at work. So if you are self-employed (even doing something crappy like selling pretzels on the sidewalk), you don't have a "job", though you have an occupation (selling pretzels). But President Trump has a job since as POTUS he is an employee of the US government, even though the POTUS slot doesn't seem to be listed in the Executive Schedule, hmm. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this (mostly) and not with Temerarius above. "Occupation" is not more prestigious but it tends to be more permanent, as you could have one occupation through several jobs, as you worked for several employers doing the same sort of thing. (And if you changed your occupation while working for the same employer, you might choose to describe it as a new job.) However, I do think self-employment, with a legitimate expectation of deriving income, can be considered a type of job. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, it's less about who is paying you than if you are responsible to someone else for your work schedule and activities. I know a self-employed tax preparer who has an office with certain advertised business hours, so she has to be there during those hours or her clients will be stuck and angry. I.e. she has a job. But I'd say a pro author who writes a novel on their own schedule and sends it to a publisher doesn't have a job per se. Similarly if the pretzel vendor takes a day off for some reason, they don't have to answer for it, so they don't really have a job either. As Jayron says, it's a linguistic difference. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the broadest sense, there are a large number of words to describe "how you occupy your time and earn money", including (just off the top of my head): job, occupation, career, vocation, profession, work, pursuit, livelihood, etc. Insofar as the words have differences, it's determined by context, linguistic register, prestige, etc. Here is a forum discussion from Word-reference that discusses the specific difference between job and occupation. Here is another article about the same, and also throws "career" as well. Here is a discussion at Stack Exchange including even more terms. --Jayron 32 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient astronaut view on afterlife?

What is the view on the afterlife with the ancient astronaut theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.70.2 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the ancient astronaut theory is a diverse set of beliefs, there is no one answer, and many of these beliefs do not have a spiritual component. I would point you toward UFO religion, which describes some notable religions whose belief systems involve UFOs, and some of which intersect with ancient astronaut theories. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of misophonia

Misophonia is the hatred of sound. Is there an opposite condition, the hatred of silence? Does it have a name? I'm thinking of a particular someone who seemingly can't stand to exist without the TV making sound, even if they are paying no attention at all to what it is showing. But, I think it is not that uncommon. Just wondering, thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "opposite of misophonia" yields something called "Autonomous sensory meridian response" or ASMR. Looking at the article, I'm not so sure it's precisely the "opposite". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sedatephobia turns up in online searches, but doesn't seem to have any real currency. Mikenorton (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ASMR is a big thing on reddit and youtube. It's not what I'm thinking of. It's more like some people seem to suffer from anxiety that is relieved by noise. I'm wondering if this is a generally recognized issue. Yeah, sedateophobia doesn't sound like a good term. I don't know what the right linguistic counterpart to misophonia would be, but I think "misophonia" has Greek roots rather than Latin. Anyone know the ancient Greek word for silence or quiet? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must be extroversion. I recommend movement to Manhattan furnished room post-haste for all afflicted with said condition. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of wikt:miso- is wikt:philo-, so logically the opposite of misophonia would be philophonia. However, I see no evidence of such a word existing, except as the name of a Swiss women's choir. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet philharmonic is a real word and means orchestra instead of liking harmony or music. Language is weird. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The word "philharmonic" ("love of harmony", "love of music") is typically prefixed to "orchestra", for example the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, which is now called the "New York Philharmonic", but the "Orchestra" part is understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that having the TV on when not watching is not necessarily to avoid silence, but often to drown out annoying sounds, like barking dogs, shouting neighbors, traffic sounds, etc. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person wakes up in the middle of the night and turns the TV on. I have gotten him to turn the volume down so I can't hear it as much. That helps quite a bit. Mostly I'm just wondering about the condition. I guess I experience it sometimes and will occasionally put on quiet music to calm myself down if I'm bothered by something, but not cable news blitherers like this guy puts on, and not that often. Anyway I guess it's not something with a name. Thanks for all the responses. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has to do with what the brain pays attention to, and what it ignores. A TV left on can be easily ignored, while other random sounds demand our attention. If trying to sleep, this is a problem. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A TV left on can be easily ignored," Not for me, it can't. Having the TV or radio on keeps me awake, because the sounds of speech or music demand my attention.--Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good set of earplugs might help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use noise cancellation headphones sometimes, but frequent use of earplugs is a bad idea because they can cause ear infections and other irritation, at least for me. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to your doctor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure there is an opposite, but check out the work of one Gordon Hempton, whom I’ve not read but might be interesting to you. Temerarius (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Sources on the collapse of the European Union

Are there good sources with analytics on the collapse of the European Union? I want to write an article on this topic. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What collapse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Union --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it talk about a "collapse"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible disintegration of European Union--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it hasn't collapsed yet ;). But there was a bunch of discussion about its long term stability around the time of the potential Grexit a few years ago. The basic idea was that the EU-wide Euro makes it impossible for the member countries to float their currencies against each other, so that lets the big exporting countries (i.e. Germany) put the squeeze on the importers. There was a prediction that if Grexit happened, Italeave, Czechout, and several others would be next ("Departugal" was another good one). Brexit doesn't count since the UK is not on the Euro. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples authoritative sources? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen our History of the Euro article? What you are discussing may already be covered there. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a section about bailouts but those were seen as bandaids over the more fundamental issue of non-synchronized economies on a single currency being unable to float. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is Europe, those Band-Aids would be Elastoplasts. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The British narrative on Brexit is often focused on the EU playing hardball in negotiations to discourage other countries from following suit, because if a few wealthy countries that 'pay in' did, it could collapse. But this is all speculative. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened between 540 and 565 CE?

Sorry I am not very familiar with this very early period of the middle ages, Population_of_the_Byzantine_Empire says its population density fell from 8.13 per km2 to 5.59 per km2 in just 25 years. Apparently without change of territory size. Is it a bad data point, or did something very significant happen, like a plague? --Lgriot (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Plague of Justinian, the first major wave of Yersinia pestis to hit Europe and its surroundings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That, indeed, would explain it. --Lgriot (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I have added a brief note to the article's lead by way of clarification. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modern philosopher

Is philosopher a job any more outside academia? What do they do for money? Temerarius (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They can write books or do shows on PBS, like Closer to Truth. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Any more"? When was it ever a job in the "real" world? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were once salons, where various intellectuals, including philosophers, could get food, drinks, and maybe a room in return for their contributions to the conversation. So, in a sense this was a job. The hosts of such salons were essentially patrons of the arts, including philosophy. A philosopher might make a circuit of the various salons, so as to not wear out his welcome.SinisterLefty (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to dining philosophers problem they subsist on spaghetti and have to share forks with other philosophers. So it is a fairly low-overhead existence. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least while they remain seated. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Japanese salsa band Orquesta de la Luz: Good example of cultural appropriation or not?

I read this piece from the Huff Post about whether or not minority groups in the U.S can commit cultural appropriation with other minority groups. Then I read Wikipedia’s article on cultural appropriation. After reading them, Orquesta de la Luz came to mind and asked myself how this would apply to this group. Nora, the lead singer of this Japanese salsa band, sings mostly in Cuban-like, salsa-like Spanish even though the lead singer Nora didn’t know much Spanish in real life, was well-known and popular in many parts of Latin America in the 1990’s, and also received the United Nations Peace Prize and a letter of appreciation from Bill Clinton when he was president of the U.S. But salsa music has strong ethnic ties and meaning to Latin American people, especially for those from the Caribbean region. Pop, rock, and even hip hop and Argentine tango are treated differently, as if they have no ethnic ties nor meaning in the world, than Afro-Caribbean Latin genres of music like salsa. I have not read about any debates in English nor Spanish about whether Orquesta de la Luz committed cultural appropriation. Before I continue, let me say that I’m not trying to express an opinion on whether cultural appropriation is always bad since there are those who are opposed and not opposed to cultural appropriation nor that what the Japanese group Orquesta de la Luz did was a good or bad thing. In fact, this band is still actually one of my favorite salsa bands, but I’m interested in the question. I also came across this long technical article to me that talks about how this band is an example of Japan’s cultural practice of mimicking and simulating the foreign, which they view as domesticating or Japanifying it. Hopefully someone can simplify this better. Another point is that Japan never tried to colonize Latin America nor was Japan ever colonized by another country and cultural appropriation is often seen as a form of colonialism, which wouldn’t apply to Japan’s case. Final point is that none of Orquesta de la Luz’s members where born in nor grew up in the West.

So, what would be the best example of when it comes to Orquesta de La Luz in light of these factors: cultural appropriation, cultural appreciation, or neither? Willminator (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a history of the Japanese, as a group of people, systematically stealing land, enslaving people, oppressing, and otherwise mistreating Latin American people as a group? Is the cultural element being used in a way that mocks the original culture? Is it being used in a way that prevents the host culture themselves from profiting from it, by taking the place in the marketplace that the host culture would be using it, if it wasn't for the power culture already using their position as a power culture to take the cultural item to market and profit from it themselves? The context in which something is being used is how cultural appropriation is identified. --Jayron 32 12:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me like a request for a debate. Is it something that is likely to be answered by references? --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, I would say no to all. 2 points regarding several of the questions: I would say that the Japanese salsa band did profit from their popularity in Latin America, but of course the band made salsa music and singing in the Spanish language more global of course, so both sides profited. Also, the biggest contact for Japan with Latin America was that there was a lot of immigration to Latin America from Japan after World War II, especially to Brazil and Peru, because Latin America was more welcoming to them than the U.S, Canada, and Europe during this time. Anyway, to the best of what I can understand, the motive according to what I’ve read would be the “Japanification” of the foreign object, that was imported and then liked by a niche, by simulating how they would imagine it to be. So Orquesta de la Luz would not be an accurate example of “cultural appreciation” then nor cultural appreciation? Again, I love the band, but have asked myself questions. I just want to know on what category or not would the actions of this unique band fall into. Willminator (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Strait

What stopped those imprisoned in the gulag from escaping to Alaska as this is only (by my estimation, mainland to mainland) 70km apart, with at least two islands in between. Further to this, common literature and mainstream thought on the subject says that the Native American populations came to the American via a now non-existent land bridge. Why is this needed in this hypothesis as the two main lands are so close to each other this is a rowable distance in the summers. (please see South Sea Islanders) Any additional information in relation to either of these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2000 miles of the most inhospitable land on the planet and the worst ocean conditions on earth. Most Gulags were not all that close to the Bering strait. There's a map at gulag. Also, even if they made it to the coast through barren taiga and tundra without a scrap of food they faced crossing the roughest seas on earth in a shoddily-constructed raft, they would have had to drag several hundred miles; because the land around the Bering Strait is mostly tundra, they would have had to find wood long before they got there. And even if you did, the seas are so rough that even professional fisherman who work those waters regularly in seaworthy boats have problems, Alaskan fishermen have one of the most dangerous jobs in America. You and your little raft you somehow dragged over the last hundred miles of your cold, foodless journey are going to brave marginally-above-freezing water for several hours in an open raft in rough seas? Good luck with that. --Jayron 32 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to the other half of the question: the Bering land bridge is not a hypothesis but known to have existed based on geological and ecological evidence. Similarly, archaeological evidence tells us when human beings populated the Americas. At the moment, the best-dated early human sites in the Americas range from 22,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago. This coincides with the most recent presence of the land bridge, from about 30,000 to 11,000 years ago. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for primitive man migrating to the Americas, note that ocean-capable sailboats are a technology that didn't exist if you go back much further than the last ice age, as they needed to be able to survive big waves. (In the tropics at least they wouldn't have needed to worry about freezing to death from being constantly wet.) Also, since they didn't know there was a full continent or two for them to expand into, it would seem rather crazy to take such risks for no reason. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Primitive man walked across, or more specifically, they expanded their settlements very incrementally over the region in small bits. The Bering Land Bridge meant no boats were necessary at all, and they didn't make the journey in one go, or even in one generation. 2) Like most large-scale, long-term migrations, it happened in little bits over many hundreds of years, with each successive year or so setting up a new camp or village a few miles further down the land until people ended up in the Americas. The image of a group of pioneers traveling thousands of miles from the nearest humans is not really correct. Think more like settling a few miles further along than the last camp, and then repeating that several hundred times. Primitive man was able to do so because they were an organized group of people camping and hunting and doing all of the things that organized groups of people can do together, not a single malnourished, poorly clothed individual. --Jayron 32 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In retort, in the gulag you're starving anyway, the gulag near Lavrentiya Лаврентия would have a population and there would definitely have been a boat to steel. I did not mention a rafts. Also, I have not labelled the land bridge a hypothesis but rather that this was needed for a crossing from one continent to another. The Eskimo people live beyond the arctic circle and could travel on permanent ice from one to the other. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, I'm sorry for misreading what you said about a hypothesis. My answer is meant to show you that even if travel by boat was possible before c. 30,000 years ago, the archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis that anyone did so. Instead, the evidence shows that people settled the Americas only after the landbridge had been in existence for millennia, and not when a sea or ice crossing was the only option. Hope that is clearer! Jayron32 has provided you with a good explanation of how it happened. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think both you and Jayron are still misreading the Q still. It's not "How did they cross ?" but "Why weren't they able to cross by boat before the land bridge formed ?". At least that's how I read it. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they didn't exist the area. The earliest humans arrived in northeast Asia thousands years after the land bridge was in existence: "Around 20,000 years ago a small group of these Asian hunters headed into the face of the storm, entering the East Asian Arctic during the Last Glacial Maximum.". Before the Bering Land Bridge formed, there were no people around to build boats and cross said sea. --Jayron 32 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps worth noting that the mode of travel regarding the Bering migration is something that attracts multiple theories that go in and out of favour depending on recent findings and the reinterpretation of old ones. There's much more at Settlement of the Americas, but even that only summarizes the complexity. The exact placement and duration of the glaciation is often part of the conversation because the same glaciers that provide for the lower sea levels also act as physical barriers to some of the proposed routes. For example, back in the mid-90s when I got my archaeology degree, the purely land-based route was being supplanted by a model involving "land hopping" by small boat. (I'm not suggesting that's the current model, BTW; just pointing out that it's an area that attracts a lot of scrutiny, intense passions, and is also quite complicated by several factors). Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; there's likely some fuzziness in how the migration happened, however it happened,it was probably using many different methods in a rather haphazard manner over many generations. It wasn't, probably, a group of adventurous pioneers who made the trip in one go with the intent of discovering new lands, but rather part of the rather arbitrary and random wanderings of people chasing food sources and looking for advantageous places to live. --Jayron 32 12:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a random walk. They wouldn't likely have known when they reached a new continent, or even what a continent was, for that matter. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see what you mean. Thank you. I think Jayron32 has answered that question now, so I'm glad we've got there! Useful Wikipedia link: Paleolithic and Early human migrations . 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also let me finish my comparison with migrations that did take place by boat. Those were in warmer waters, as I said, but this also means that developing boat technology was more important, as there it was possible to travel great distances without freezing to death, even if constantly wet. Also, less food is needed for the trip, if you don't need to burn large quantities to stay warm. When boats were used in arctic climates, like by the Vikings and Inuit, it was only much later, after a number of innovations that allowed them to be practical in that climate. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories of Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt

I’m trying to find some background information on the people that signed the declaration. They would all be German Protestant Clergy active in 1945.

The list is here - many are not using their full names:

http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/projects/niem/StuttgartDeclaration.htm

Theophil Wurm, Hans Asmussen, Hans Meiser, OK.

“Held” I can’t find.

Hans Lilje, OK.

“Hahn” I found a mention of his first name as Hugo but nothing else.

“Lic. Niesel” I can’t find.

“Smend D.” I can’t find.

Gustav Heinemann, F.K. Otto Dibelius, Martin Niemöller, OK.

Any idea on Held, Hahn, Niesel, or Smend? There are Wikipedia articles on the rest. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:72 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the German wikipedia article links to articles on all four. Heinrich Held, a protestant pastor from Essen; Hugo Hahn of the Evangelical Luthern Church of Saxony; theology professor Wilhelm Niesel; and professor and lawyer Rudolf Smend. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:72 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Tripitaka Koreana during Japanese occupation

What happened to Tripitaka Koreana during the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945? --2.37.200.57 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that anything special happened to them at that time (which is to say, I can't find any additional information about them during that period), however there is some information about them during the Korean War located at Haeinsa. --Jayron 32 12:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Canon

The standard western Bible is comprised of a selection of books known as the Biblical Canon. There are a number of books which were not included, now known as The Apocrypha. The Hebrew Torah is very much similar to the Old Testament of the Bible and so question is, why does the Torah not contain these missing books such as the books of Adam and Eve or the Book of Enoch? Who took these out of the Jewish Canon, when did they do this and why? Were they ever in there? And if not, why not and then how did they get into the Christian Canon before their removal? Thanks All Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Torah is a somewhat imprecise term, I think you want Tanakh, which is the Hebrew religious canon itself. The Torah is often used to refer to only the Pentateuch, but it can also include other works. Anyways, Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to answering your question. See Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. Notable to answering your question is the quote from that article "There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed." The idea that the books were "taken out" of the canon may or may not be accurate; they may have been "in" the canon in some traditions and not others, they may have been added and later removed, or have never been included in the first place. It's complex, and as with any canon, the exact form of the canon evolves and changes over time. --Jayron 32 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, the Hebrew canon was relatively fixed (anywhere between 150BCE and 200CE, according to our article) long before Christianity did the same (4th century CE, according to this article). So your question really should be why the Christian canon changed the Jewish one, not the other way around. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, one has to consider the purpose of the works in question. The Old Testament and the Tanakh have different purposes, insofar as Christianity is a different religion with different beliefs than Judaism, and as such the exact nature of how the religion views the scriptures can be different, sometimes subtly and sometimes profoundly. In terms of choosing canonical parts for each, there are likely strong theological concerns why early Christians included the deuterocanonical books while many (but by no means all) forms of Judaism does not include them, that is the books are often chosen because the narrative in them supports the theology of the faith in question. Historical or chronological concerns are often secondary to theological ones. --Jayron 32 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional Catholic Old Testament is based on the books given greatest prominence by Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews, while the Hebrew Canon is based on decisions made by Aramaic-speaking Rabbis in the Holy Land in the years after the destruction of the Temple (sometimes attributed to a Council of Jamnia). The Aramaic-speaking Jews in the Holy Land would only accept books written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, so that II Maccabees was not even a possibility...

Many of the Jewish religious works of the late BC / early AD period had apocalyptic or gnostic tendencies, and were often chronologically later than most of the books that went into the Alexandrian and Hebrew canons (and so hadn't yet had time to establish themselves as scriptures). The Book of Enoch is interesting in a way, but it promulgates a strange and extravagant mythology, and also advocates for a solar calendar which was completely different from the Jewish religious calendar... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish works with Gnostic tendencies sounds funny to me. If a work is Gnostic, isn't it far enough from Judaism to be no longer Jewish? I'm sure I'm wrong, but that's my initial reaction to the idea. Temerarius (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism and Jewish-derived or influenced monotheism were some of the spiritual trends gaining ground in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia during the early centuries A.D. (as traditional mythologies provided little solace to many inhabitants of empires), so it was almost inevitable that they would intertwine and cross-influence to at least some degree. See Mandaeism etc. AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While strictly speaking, Gnosticism was an early Christian offshoot, at that time those Christians were still Jews, and the influences that created Gnosticism also had an impact on Judaism itself; causing the influence on many traditions of Jewish mysticism, including on Kabbalah. Both the articles on Kabbalah and on Gnosticism mention the connections. --Jayron 32 12:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in what year were all early Christians still Jews? Temerarius (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Book of Acts, it was at the Council of Jerusalem that it was determined that non-Jews could become Christians without fully converting to Judaism. Non-Jews didn't become predominant in Christianity until after the destruction of the Temple... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that the destruction of the Temple led to massive changes to Judaism itself. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Jewish Christian, it was not an instantaneous process. The sect began as a variation of Judaism. In the early years, all Christians were already Jews. The Council of Jerusalem, as noted above, is when it was decided that non-Jews could become Christian (strictly speaking, even before the Council of Jerusalem, you didn't need to be Jewish, you just had to be circumcised to be a Christian. The council removed that requirement). However, Jewish Christians didn't instantly stop being Jewish at that instant; and Christianity spread among both Jews and Gentiles for some time; it's just that after the Council, there's a MUCH greater pool of Gentiles than Jews to work with, so over time the faith lost its Jewish cultural connection. --Jayron 32 12:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

negative interest rate

Quite a number of countries are nowadays finding buyers for their bonds yielding real negative interest rate (Switzerland, Germany, France, ... Even Greece !). I looked for a learned explanation of why investors would buy such bonds, instead of just keeping cash. I found nothing more than ″they have to, because of some rule (we cannot actually quote)″. Any hint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.167.113.21 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you type the phrase "how do negative yield bonds work" into Google, you an astronomical number of good explanations. Take your pick of which one makes more sense to you. It's not hard to find them. This link is the first one of many many many in that search, and it says "Investors are willing to pay a premium—and ultimately take a loss—because they need the reliability and liquidity that government and high-quality corporate bonds provide. Large investors such as pension funds, insurers, and financial institutions may have few other safe places to store their wealth." That is, even at that negative interest rate, the bonds in question are still a better investment than other options; that is taking into account the level of risk and expected gains and losses from putting the money in other vehicles, the negative interest rates still lose less money than do other investments. This is one of those intertwined cause-and-effect things as well; because if no one was buying the negative yield bonds, the sellers would have to raise the rates to a more positive yield to generate interest. If the purchasers of those bonds had better options, they would take them, but they don't, so they've got no other options. Here is yet another good link for you to read. The other thing is that there are rules that require the purchase of these bonds. That is because there are investors that, because of their nature, are only allowed to invest in certain types of investment vehicles, such as pension funds, payroll funds, commercial banks, etc. They are not allowed to invest their money in riskier investments because regulatory agencies want to prevent key institutions, such as those, from going bankrupt through bad investments, and taking the rest of the system down with it. For example, a bank may be required to keep a certain percentage of their money in liquid assets; assets that can be converted to cash essentially on-demand. They may also be prevented from investing in high-risk investments like stocks or "junk bonds" or "mortgage backed securities" that pay higher yields, because the higher risk means they could lose money too! So they are stuck with low-risk, high-liquidity assets, and these negative yield bonds are basically the only thing going. The bank has no option, they have to put their money somewhere, they can't keep it locked in giant vaults. There isn't even enough physical currency to do that! So, it goes into these crappy bonds. --Jayron 32 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the FT link required a subscription. The Bloomberg's is the kind of stuff I already found: interesting (and this one as figures about the amount), but not really explaining. I understand that people don't want to hoard large amount of cash, because of the cost of the security and handling, and the risk to lose it to stealing, fire or whatever; but most of the money is electronic now, isn't it? so they dont really need to store it as banknote. I see a number of options (even when ruling out anything risky):

the ECB charge "only" 0.5% for money deposit, would cost less than buying bond with -0.6% yield as they do. All the more so that you cannot expect the ECB price to be kept this low for the next 10 years
- Besides, the rationale for this ECB price is (if I am right) "I (the ECB) want you to put the money in the economy, to lend it so that people can go to work″, so, depositing it in ECB account or buying negative interest bonds seems to defeat this purpose
exchange € for $, buy US T-bonds (still positive), and hedge the exchange rate. Yield of T-bonds are not great, but they would cover the premium for the hedging. If you want security, Dollar and T-bonds seems perfect for just this purpose.
give back borrowed money. This include money from shareholders (up to them to get some better investment)
stop collecting new money / change business (since the ECB seems to kill this line of business)
be "creative" the way they used to be, to collect money out of junk bonds back in the day, but the other way round (that is, turn money into high yield bonds). I don't know how this can be done, but I didn't know how the opposite could be done either, and it was, so, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.167.113.21 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those links don't work, I here is another: [1]. as I mentioned already, there are hundreds of different versions you can read. Pick one or two or twelve until you find a good one. --Jayron 32 12:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you may be confused about the ECB deposit facility. This is for banks to deposit money with the central bank [2] [3][4] [5] [6]. It's not something which any random company or person can avail themselves to. BTW "All the more so that you cannot expect the ECB price to be kept this low for the next 10 years" applies both ways. Maybe the rate will be 0% in 10 years. Maybe it will be -1.0% 10 years. Remember that the rate has been negative for about 5 years now and has slowly gotten more negative [7]. In 2014, I'm sure there were some who believed it would be in positive territory by now ~~in 2014~~. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, looking over his post, it sounds like he's confusing heavily regulated institutional investors like commercial banks and the like, and the average Joe on the street investor who wants to acquire more income through investing. When a large institution like a commercial bank "invests" their assets, what they are really looking for is a place to store those assets. Central banks, like the ECB, provide that storage in the form of short-term bonds. That the bonds pay a negative yield is annoying but unavoidable as the system is set up primarily as a way for banks to store their liquid assets in a safe investment vehicle and not as a means for private investors to grow their own wealth. --Jayron 32 16:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I did not know only banks can deposit money to the central bank.

You mean, people are buying at -0.5%, for fear it might be -1% or worse later? I just cannot imagine what this would mean, if I were in the investment business.

But may be the numbers are not that huge? I mean, each fund has a part of its assets that must be keep in cash or cash-like (to be able to seize an opportunity, or whatever), and if the bank charge them to keep the money (which is fair) it may be cheaper to buy this kind of bonds. So maybe the money invested in these bonds is a small part of the total assets, but because the total is big, so is the total in these bonds? In which case, it would not be as surprising as I thought. I have no idea of the amounts: are 13 $Trillion big, when compared to the total assets managers handle?

Well the fact you cannot imagine is one reason why people tend to recommend those unfamiliar seek advice or at least follow some simple rules when investing. As I said, I'm, sure there were some in 2014 who "couldn't imagine" we'd be at -0.5%" and it wouldn't get much worse than -0.1%. Anyway putting that aside, I'm not sure if you quite understand my main point. My main point was you said you said those investing in bonds at -0.6% should just deposit with the central bank at -0.5% because it's a better rate. But even if we put aside the impossibility of most people doing so, a -0.5% short term rate is not necessarily better than a -0.6% long term rate unless you somehow magically know what the future rate will be. When investing you have to always consider the possibility it can either go up or down in the future and by differing amounts, if you don't you tend to open yourself up to a world of pain. You choose the best options for you based on the risk acceptable to you which depends on many things including the time frame given different levels of volatility etc. If you don't have a magic crystal ball or whatever, then any predictions you make about the future, if based on the best available information, will tend to be the same predictions others are making and therefore this information will generally be priced into the available options (along with everything else that goes in to it). If not, then it's likely someone will find a way to take advantage of this. See also efficient market hypothesis. Note also that while not everyone agrees with it, I'm fairly sure few of them would suggest you can be sure -0.5% is the worst it will be because you can't imagine it being worse. See also the answers by Dor (HK) and the answers Jayron32 if you haven't already. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to try this out on my friends: "Oh no, I don't want to borrow money from you, I am offering you an opportunity to invest your money with me at an exciting negative interest rate !". SinisterLefty (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Just to clarify as well as to why central banks have set negative interest rates, the reason is complex, but the basic idea is that the overnight rate is the rate that the central bank pays as interest on money loaned to it; other banks will peg their interest rates on other vehicles to this rate set by the central bank. The central bank, by the way, does not really need the money; it uses the sale of this debt (not loans, but bonds) to banks to give the banks a safe place to store its money; it is basically the savings account the central bank uses to give other banks a place to keep their money. Why is the rate on these things so low? Because of the Financial crisis of 2007–2008, the entire short-term overnight debt market (known as Commercial paper) basically ground to a halt, which means all of the liquid assets banks have dried up, known as a liquidity crisis. They stopped being liquid. Lowering the overnight rate is how the central bank tried to get that money flowing again, by lowering the overnight rate, as the theory goes, it discourages the banks from keeping their cash at the central bank, and instead encourages the banks to put that money into the commercial paper market and get it flowing again. It took negative interest rates, but it worked, the financial market reached a new equilibrium that allowed the commercial paper system to get flowing again. The downside is that the new equilibrium includes the negative-interest bonds, and to raise interest rates to the old pre-2008 levels would throw off that equilibrium, and could endanger the system again. So we're in kind of a catch-22; we have a stable commercial paper market, but it's dependent on a negative interest rate. If you want an actual well-written expert source on this, this pretty much explains just what I did. --Jayron 32 18:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that the Original Post specified “bonds yielding real negative interest rate,” which involves either current inflation rates (time period X, location Z), or expectations for future rates of inflation. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is actually very simple: Many Institutions are obligated to invest their money into secure shares, bonds and alike to establish a certain financial stability in their financial balance which is higher than just keeping that money in a safe (inflation risk for example). Because the financial market is totally flooded and bloated more and more each year it has become very hard to find secure investment possibilities even if negative interest rates are included. Also many countries (like Germany) have changed their policy or habits regarding national debts in recent years.--Kharon (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks

On the page for Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks it says George Kerr took office as the first MOE (for Ontario) on July 23, 1971. The Ministry of the Environment wasn't formed until 1972, though. How can someone be Minister of the Environment if there's no Ministry of the Environment yet? It won't be the end of the world if I can't figure this out, but I'm using Sudbury as a historical case study for my master's degree, and this is pertinent (though by no means crucial) to my research.

Dfishershin (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that he was appointed in a provisional role while the enabling legislation to create the department was in the works. There can also be a Minister without portfolio, who has the position, despite not yet being assigned any duties. So, he could have been that until officially assigned to the new ministry, and your source didn't bother to make the distinction. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search reveals that "In 1971, the Department of Energy and Resources Management was reorganized and renamed the Department of the Environment in order to better reflect the Department's increased responsibilities with respect to environmental protection, conservation and preservation as outlined in the Environmental Protection Act of 1971. The Department consisted of the Office of the Minister, the Office of the Deputy Minister, an Administrative Services Branch, the Air Management Branch, the Waste Management Branch, and the Conservation Authorities Branch. In 1972, the Department of the Environment was amalgamated with the Ontario Water Resources Commission to form the Ministry of the Environment" (Source: Archives of Ontario).

Our Ministry (government department) article says: "In Canada, five of the ten provincial governments use the term "ministry" to describe their departments (Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta) but the other five, as well as the federal government, use the term "department". Despite the difference in nomenclature, both the provincial and federal governments use the term "minister" to describe the head of a ministry or department". So, as clear as mud then. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems clear to me. The Department of the Environment, founded in 1971, was headed by a Minister of the Environment. The Department changed its name later, but the name of the person at the head of it has always been the Minister of the Environment, down to 1971. --Jayron 32 16:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Alansplodge point is that it's unclear why Ontario had a Department of the Environment if they call their ministries ministries. It seems most likely that in ~1972, Ontario decided to rename and reorganise any of their ministries called "Department" into "Ministry" but out article lacks historical information. See e.g. Ministry of Education (Ontario) , Ministry of Health (Ontario) (which mentions a government wide restructure), Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Ontario) (ditto), Ministry of Labour (Ontario) (ditto), and Ministry of Infrastructure (Ontario) which specifically mentions renaming them. That said, it seems like Ministry of Finance (Ontario) was always a ministry unless our article is very poor, so I'm not sure what, if anything, was the difference between a department and ministry in pre-1972 Ontario. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found this act [8] (it's actually used as a source in the MOL article at a minimum) which confirms the reorganisation including mass rename in 1972. But I don't think it provides any clue on whether there was any difference between a department and ministry pre-1972. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British colonies that became independent through war victory

Other than the United States, what other former British colonies became independent through military victory over the British Empire? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be an intermediate category, where the British weren't defeated militarily, but still the cost was so high they decided to leave as a result of attacks, or leave under different terms or timetable. This may have been the case in the Palestine Mandate. See Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandate was not a colony, sensu stricto. It was a League of Nations mandate. But that's probably nit-picky. The OP can answer their own question, without involvement from anyone here, by research starting at List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom. --Jayron 32 15:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Aden Emergency prompted an early British withdrawal from Aden in 1967, although it had technically been independent since 1963 but with a British military presence (they're still fighting there without us). The Cyprus Emergency probably hastened independence of the strategically important Colony of Cyprus, but equally vital Malta peacefully achieved independence only four years later. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some case for Kenya and the Mau Mau. Although they did not, I suppose, defeat the British.--18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

And possibly delayed the British departure, peaceful Gold Coast on the other side of the continent became independent Ghana in 1957, Kenya not until 1962. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opioid crisis and the aftermath

There is a lot of talk in the paper press and in the digital web publications about the settlements related to the opioid crisis. I am wondering about the policies of distribution of funds. One source [9] states that the settlement money will be institutionalized. How about families of individuals who died in overdoses? Thanks, - AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just today, this article seems to explain what is known so far. They breakdown how the settlement money is supposed to be distributed. --Jayron 32 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the link provided: "...the combined value of the deal breaks down as follows: $20 billion to $25 billion in cash to be divided among the states and localities to help pay for health care, law enforcement and other costs associated with the epidemic; and another $25 billion to $30 billion in addiction-treatment drugs, supplies and delivery services..." So it would appear that the vast majority of the funds will be paid to corporate organisations which already have major budgets which are mismanaged, this will simply add to their budget and will be filtered through in a big cycle in true American spirit, with the common man being forgotten about at the bottom of the pile to pick up the pieces of their lives and push on as best they can. But hey, survival of the fittest, right? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't comment on any of that in this venue, because we don't engage in political debate here, instead we just provide information. You're entire free to have any emotional reaction you wish to have to this information, but you'll receive neither affirmation nor contradiction from me. If we were having this conversation elsewhere, that could be different. Just not here. --Jayron 32 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Access to the Hindu

Hi all, I have been helping to improve the sourcing and quality of WP:INDIA related pages. I frequently used The Hindu (an Indian Newspaper) articles, based on its reliability, high editorial standards and detailed coverage on the topic. But recently The Hindu placed its website behind paywall. So Now I cannot access articles for example this to improve our articles. Any suggestions if there is any way I can access through paywall. I do have JSTOR access, but it doesn't work there. Please feel free to move this thread if this is not the right place to ask this. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBigXray. One option I know of is Wikipedia's WP:RX service. Anyone can make a request for an article or book you need to improve the encyclopedia. Editors who have subscriptions/database access check the page and if someone has access, they can share the article with you. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply IP user 70.67.193.176. That will certainly be one possible way, although it will be slow and might not work sometimes. I was wondering if there is an existing mechanism (something like the library card, or its derivatives) through which I can apply and get access to the this Indian newspaper behind paywall. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered physically going to an actual library? If there is a public library in or near the town where you live, it should have a subscription to the major Paywalled online news sites... However, they require using the library’s computers to access them. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest NewsStand has this and you can access it through the web sites of libraries that subscribe to ProQuest. For example the San Francisco Public Library subscribes. You need an SFPL library card to access it through the web, but any California resident can get a card. If you're in the US but not in California, try the web site of any big-city library in your state and see if there is a similar setup. The same is true of academic libraries, if you have access to one. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Catherine the Great in Nazi propaganda

How was the ethnic German Empress Catherine the Great depicted in Nazi propaganda? Thanks. --87.18.64.165 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be German-born (Prussian, technically) Empress of Russia. There certainly would be potential for propaganda there, something like "See how these lowly Slavs can only prosper when under direction from a proper Aryan absolute leader ?". Don't know if they ever actually used it, though. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was she a blonde? She did provide a good example on how to operate, by having her own husband (Peter the not-so-great) overthrown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was a royal person and as such not popular or even hostile among "National Socialists". There are some rumors that Hitlers only interest in her case was to steal valuables like the Amber Room. --Kharon (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]