Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 12

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is related to the Imperial Japanese Navy, but JMSDF has thus far intentionally avoided using any names previously used by IJN vessels. For example, though JDS_Kongō_(DDG-173) and Japanese battleship Kongō have similar sounding names, their names are different when written in Japanese.

Many historians and commentators have speculated on the exact reason for this move (atonement, war guilt, etc), but by the end of the day it's just speculation and not official. Has any official from the JMSDF or the Japanese government ever commented on the reason for this naming scheme? Mũeller (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be difficult to find, as the Japanese tend to ignore the war entirely. When they do refer to it, it's in an oblique reference like "the unfortunate incident". SinisterLefty (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Mũeller -- If it wanted to be sensitive, then it shouldn't have kept the old rayed flag (File:Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg), since that's something which probably a far higher number of people outside Japan (who aren't naval history buffs) would respond to negatively... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't they often name after IJN ships, but written in hiragana rather than kanji? Sample List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships.—eric 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. My question is basically: "why use hiragana ship names rather than the old kanji ship names?"

The obvious answer that everyone suspects is: "to avoid pissing off other Asian countries that Japan previously invaded". But I want to see whether the Japanese government ever made official comments on the issue. Mũeller (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Admitting such a thing would seem so un-Japanese. Even during the war, they didn't say "We are going to invade your country, kill or enslave your people, and steal all your stuff". They claimed they were helping to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". SinisterLefty (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WHAAOE, in particular on Japanese ship-naming conventions. Our article claims that "Prior to the end of World War II Japanese ship names were rendered in kanji; after the end of the war this tradition was abandoned in favor of hiragana to separate the perception of the Maritime Self-Defense Forces from the old navy", but it does not provide an explicit reference for that fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There may be something in The Japan Self-Defense Forces Law: Translation, History, and Analysis, but I'll let you peruse it at your leisure. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the various ships called Kongō are named after Mount Kongō which is not a particularly belligerent name. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the change was less "to avoid pissing off other Asian countries" and more internal, an outcome of the debate withing Japan itself post-war. Tho not dealing specifically with the Jieitai, you might be interested in chapter 4 of Gottlieb, N. (2016). Kanji politics: Language policy and Japanese script..—eric 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been little "debate withing Japan itself post-war". They largely ignore the war entirely or minimize their guilt, for example by referring to the women they captured and forced to be sex slaves as "comfort women". SinisterLefty (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, please read at least the second paragraph of Post-occupation Japan#Politics, or maybe Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution#Debate. Even concerning your later example, claiming little debate within Japan is shockingly ingenuous.—eric 17:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

prevailing party

Joe sues BobCorp and there are protracted legal maneuvers and discovery, ending up with an out-of-court settlement where BobCorp pays Joe a negotiated sum. Is Joe now the "prevailing party" under US legal doctrine? Does one say in vernacular that Joe won the suit, given that it never went to trial? In the types of cases I'm thinking of, BobCorp is a huge company, the discovery produced juicy evidence, and the settlement amount is multi megabucks. I.e. it's not a nuisance payout but a settlement that a sane litigant would only enter if (on balance of probabilities) they expected to lose the case and decided not to roll the dice on the likely damage award. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "prevailing party" and the wiktionary entry suggests that it is only determined by a trial outcome, but I think I've heard it differently.

Usual disclaimer: not seeking legal advice. Watching two idiots argue on reddit about a news event raised this question. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The standard formulation in the popular press for such occurrences is that the matter is settled out of court. Many of these are civil law equivalences of the criminal plea of nolo contendere or the Alford plea, in the sense that BobCorp expressly admits no wrongdoing, but agrees to pay Joe. --Jayron32 19:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 13

Assyrian, Babylonian and Hittite methods of warfare and torture

I am interested into the warfare and torture methods of the ancient Middle Eastern military powers such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians and Hittites etc. basically “biblical military forces” if you will so. Is there literature about this subject? PDF documents or anything of the like? I have taken a look at the different wiki sites. While they do mention some of these methods, they do not go into details and while they refer to reliefs, they don’t actually show them (which is understandable, as many of them are rather gruesome).

Thank you for your answers!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:18C8:AAB0:523A:9250 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Assyrians were notorious for using raw naked military force to sustain their empire, without much attempt to hide the iron fist in any kind of velvet glove, so there was fairly universal rejoicing at the fall of Nineveh. I don't know anything about torture specifically, but as it says in the article, "The Assyrians had, by the accounts of their own records, been brutal rulers even by the standards of the time"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

War chariots were commonly used by those civilizations. Naval warfare was minimal. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare: p.81, Toward a Reconstruction of the Assyrian Tactical System.

The Campaigns of Sargon II, King of Assyria, 721–705 B.C., by Sarah C. Melville.

Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

securities acts of 1933 and 1934

SEC press release about a federal jury verdict finding these two Ukrainian guys violated section 27B stroke 6 or whatever of the securities acts of 1933 and 1934. It doesn't say anywhere whether it was a civil or criminal trial! It doesn't say what if anything they want to do to these guys now that they have been found liable! Although (I noticed it just now) the word "liable" rather than "guilty" suggests it was a civil trial. Is it intentional obfuscation? Does it reflect the absence of a long arm of the law reaching all the way to Ukraine? People often complain about the SEC settling cases instead of taking financial miscreants all the way to trial. Do they do these inconsequential(?) cases to keep up appearances while ignoring the big and serious domestic ones? Is this case actually something for them to crow about? I'm confused... 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Securities Act of 1933 (section 17 last updated in 2010) provides for enforcement by civil lawsuit in federal court. This is typical with enforcement by regulatory bodies (as opposed to law enforcement bodies). Rather than put you on criminal trial, the government is literally suing you. If it winds up that the defendants have no assets in the United States and refuse to pay, trying to extract that money from beyond US borders would be an entire process on top of this. In terms of consequentialness, I don't know, you'd have to decide yourself. SEC completes around 100 cases of securities fraud a year (out of 500ish cases total), and from my reading of the most recent annual report, the average SEC case involves $6 million in ill-gotten gains. So this one is significantly larger than average, but there are one or more cases of some kind every year in which the defendants are accused of swindling hundreds of millions. If I were to interpret things, I would say that SEC press releases seem to be largely exhaustive, in the interest in informing the public about a huge fraction of its activities. You'll note that URL is meaningful - this is the 236th press release they've put out this year. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Aha, I think you're saying the SEC is not an LE agency so it doesn't prosecute people. Ok, makes sense. But there are criminal securities frauds too (Madoff, Enron, etc.) so I guess those get referred to the DOJ? Are there stats for those too? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Btw I had the impression that those Ukrainian guys mostly tricked a bunch of high frequency trading bots. I'd probably want to give them medals for that, but that's why I'm not in this business ;). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Criminal investigations of financial crimes are usually handled (at a federal level) by the FBI in their "White-collar crime" unit, see here for a description of that particular function of the FBI. It's important to note that the SEC usually charges and takes to trial corporations in civil court; despite corporate personhood corporations are not usually defendants in a criminal case; a corporation cannot be put in jail and is only capable of paying financial penalties anyways; and the standards of proof in a civil case make it easier to extract financial penalties using the civil court system anyways. Individual actual people (those with brains and heartbeats and the like) can be punished with criminal penalties, so it is much more likely for them to be charged criminally. This document notes two things about that 1) That there is no inherent legal reason why a corporation cannot be charged criminally and 2) that in reality, they often are not, for some of the reasons I note, as well as many other reasons. --Jayron32 12:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@John M Baker: this is the stuff that falls squarely into your area of expertise. I'd love to hear your insights on this question. (For those who don't know, John is a securities lawyer). Eliyohub (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission can only bring civil enforcement actions, which can either be brought as civil actions in federal court or as administrative proceedings before the SEC itself. This was a civil action in a federal court - specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which hears cases in Manhattan, the Bronx, and a few other New York counties. Following a full trial, a jury has found for the SEC on every count, which means that the defendants were found to have committed both market manipulation and fraud. The jury verdict did not address remedies. The judge has ordered the SEC to file any motion for remedies by December 20, with briefing to be concluded by February 7, so we don't know yet exactly what penalties will be exacted. The defendants seem to have submitted to U.S. jurisdiction, although it remains to be seen how easily the SEC will collect whatever cash penalty may be assessed.

Although the SEC does settle most of its cases, it still litigates quite a few of them. This was a fairly typical case to be fully litigated. There are various reasons why big American companies, especially financial institutions, tend to settle rather than litigate, including the companies' distaste for being put out of business. The SEC is very powerful, notwithstanding its lack of criminal enforcement authority. SEC enforcement actions tend to be more transparent than those of other federal agencies, and the issuance of a press release is, as Someguy1221 noted, far from unusual.

Criminal cases are brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which usually coordinates with the SEC. In such cases, typically both criminal and civil cases are brought. I don't think the DoJ breaks securities criminal cases out separately from other criminal cases, but maybe there is some statistic I just haven't seen. The majority of SEC enforcement actions do not have associated criminal cases, even though theoretically securities law violations can be prosecuted as crimes. This may be because it is harder to prove a criminal case than a civil case; because a criminal case is thought to be inappropriate (e.g., when the securities law violation was only negligent); or because the relevant U.S. Attorney's office has different priorities. John M Baker (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I remember avoiding discovery as being another reason for companies to want to settle. That was also a criticism of the SEC, that by settling too easily instead of taking cases to trial, they lost out on gaining actionable knowledge through discovery and trial testimony. There is also a sense from some quarters that people engaged in financial misconduct don't give a crap about lawsuits and financial penalties since it's all other people's money anyway, so the only thing that can possibly change their behaviour is a serious prospect of going to jail. Therefore the DOJ (particularly Eric Holder after the 2008 meltdown) has taken heat for declaring some companies TBTF instead of prosecuting the bigwigs. So I had wondered whether this case was an instance. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding who pays the penalty, this is the reason the SEC attempts to hold individuals accountable to some degree. According to the same report I linked above, the SEC is suing at least one individual instead of or in addition to a company in over 70% of cases. It could be a financial penalty, or it could be some kind of insurance policy to prevent the person who ran a company from somehow making money off the company going out of business from the penalties. In the case of Theranos, for instance, the founder and CEO was prohibited from receiving any profit from the liquidation of the company (stemming from ownership interest) unless and until the defrauded investors were repaid. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Convenience links for people wanting to read more: Securities and Exchange Commission, Southern District of New York, lawsuit, civil law (common law). To elaborate on what Mr. Baker said, a criminal case under federal law is prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney's office. They're the people who actually file the charges and show up in court for the prosecution. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are frequently involved in investigating potential federal crimes, but they're not lawyers. Similarly, in state crimes, police or state agencies investigate, but a criminal case is prosecuted by the office of a district attorney ("DA") or sometimes that of the state attorney general or a city attorney. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15

Electoral college

The President of United States gets elected by the popular vote and as well as electoral college. How about the governors of each state? Do they get electoral college or that is only for the Presidential election? Donmust90 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Donmust90: The president is only elected by the electoral college. Governors are elected by popular vote. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

See United States Electoral College. The US Pres and Vice Pres are the only offices in the US that are elected by the EC. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Mississippi has an electoral vote system for governor.—eric 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fascinating! Apparently, to win the governorship outright, you need an (absolute) majority of both the popular and electoral vote. If no one gets both, then the House of Representatives decides (much as it does at the Federal level, except that in the Federal case the vote is state-by-state in the House).

In the 1999 Mississippi gubernatorial election, neither Ronnie Musgrove nor Michael Parker got either majority (Musgrove got more votes than Parker, but not a majority, and they split the electoral vote evenly). The House chose Musgrove on party lines. --Trovatore (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect an ulterior motive, to keep the party in power despite the will of the people. Depending on when this system was set up, it may have been designed to protect Republicans recently, Democrats during the Solid South period, or even some extinct party before that. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you'd be right: 1890.—eric 01:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Our article does not mention the change in manner of electing the governor, but here shows 1817, 1832, 1868, all had "qualified electors of the State."—eric 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out, for the benefit of anyone confused, that the word "elector" in this context simply means "person entitled to vote". It doesn't refer to "electoral votes", which seem to have shown up for the first time in the 1890 constitution. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's to give more power to landowners (and, surprise, there weren't a lot of non-white landowners in Mississippi). Remember, you used to have to be a landowner to vote at all in most states, including Mississippi. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have to be a landowner to vote at all, then it's unclear why an electoral college would increase the power of landowners. If you don't have to own land, then it's still unclear. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there does seem to be at least a missing step in your explanation.

For what it's worth, not even the 1817 constitution has an explicit property requirement. It does say that you have to be enrolled in the militia (unless exempted from military service) or have paid a state or county tax. Presumably the tax payment is a proxy for landholding, but by my reading you can get around it by being in the militia or being exempt from the militia:

Section 1. Every free, white male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, who shall be a citizen of the United States, and shall have resided in this State one year next preceding an election, and the last six months within the county, city, or town, in which he offers to vote, and shall be enrolled in the militia thereof, except exempted by law from military service; or, having the aforesaid qualifications of citizenship and residence, shall have paid a State or county tax, shall be deemed a qualified elector: no elector shall be entitled to vote, except in the county, city or town (entitled to separate representation) in which he may reside at the time of the election.

That said, this page does claim that the 1832 constitution removed the property requirement, so maybe I'm missing something. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I was going off the Constitution of Mississippi article. If it's incorrect that Mississippi didn't have a property requirement, it needs to be corrected. Mississippi didn't have an "electoral college" before the 1890 Constitution. My point was, now that universal white male suffrage was infeasible to roll back, the state's wealthy landowners wanted to ensure they had extra say in who was Governor. Fun fact, the 1817 Constitution required the Governor either own six hundred acres of land, or land worth $2,000. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(It was actually universal male suffrage, not "white male", as this was after the 15th Amendment.) That's entirely plausible, except for one thing, which is that you haven't explained in what way the electoral vote actually gave the wealthy landowners an extra say. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

While blacks may have legally been entitled to vote, any attempting to do so in that era would possibly be murdered by the Ku Klux Klan. There were also various methods of legally excluding blacks, like literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather rules (can't vote unless your grandfather voted), and excluding those convicted of a crime, and making sure that any black who attempted to register was so convicted. Or the registrar could simply "lose" the registration. See Jim Crow laws and black codes. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no question, the reality was different from the formal law. Not really the point. 47 has still not explained how the electoral vote was supposed to enhance the power of landowners. Could be true; hasn't been explained. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, indirectly, by throwing it back to the legislature to decide who wins, that gives the wealthy, which would be almost exclusively landowners in that era, more of an opportunity to influence the outcome, by bribery (which in modern times we call campaign contributions). SinisterLefty (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I would presume that if 47 had meant "the wealthy", he/she would have said "the wealthy". The specific term was "landowners", and the connection with the electoral vote has still not been explained.

(By the way, the original 1890 scheme, if I've understood correctly, chose the governor by electoral vote exclusively, which does not seem that it would favor sending the vote back to the House. If anything, it would be the opposite, as a minor candidate capable of preventing a popular majority would probably not pick up any electoral votes, so there would still likely be an electoral majority. The current rule, where you have to win an absolute majority both of the popular and electoral vote to avoid the election going to the House, is the result of a 1982 amendment.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

In Vermont, a candidate for governor must receive a majority of the popular vote (i.e., more than 50%). If not, then the state legislature elects the governor. The last time this happened was in 2014. --118.160.98.98 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This is likely patterned after the Presidential election, in which, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (currently 270), Congress elects the President and Vice President. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The President and Vice President aren't elected by "the popular vote" at all. Each state as well as D.C. gets to pick electors; it's up to them how to do so. It just so happens they all currently assign them to the winner of the statewide vote, except for Nebraska and Maine which use the "district method". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the popular vote in each state elects the electors, not the president directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Warhol

Andy Warhol wore wigs, Google says "Andy always wore those silver wigs, but he never admitted it were wigs. One of his hairdressers has told me lately that he had his wigs regularly cut, like it were real hair. When the wig was trimmed, he put on another next month as if his hair had grown" Why? Was he bald? What did his own hair look like and did he colour his eyebrows? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to ask new questions, how about you go back to the science desk and address issues raised about your Canary Islands question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question: Tenerife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The obvious answer, if he wore them, is that the wigs were purely decorative, as were the powdered wigs of the Founding Fathers. As an artist, he also could consider his own body to be a "blank canvas". SinisterLefty (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Warhol's Wig - A Defining Art Object (from the blog "Hair is For Pulling") has some interesting info on Warhol's "hundreds of wigs" As for the evolution of his wigs: "Warhol began to wear wigs in the 1950s to cover up his early male pattern baldness and gradually graying hair. (...) The first wig was a mousy brown, but he moved into yellow-blond, then platinum, and ultimately settled on shades of grey/silver, wearing the wigs with his existing darker hair sticking out at the bottom. Warhol settled on grey because if you always appear old no one knows how old you really are."

There's some interesting stuff there, including the fact that Warhol gave one of his wigs to Jean-Michel Basquiat, as a gift, in 1985, and that one of the many many Warhol wigs sold for $10,800 at a Christie's auction in 2006.

But I found nothing on what one of his hairdressers told you lately about having the wigs cut, and I found nothing on his eyebrows there either. I still recommend reading the blog, and a lot of it is referenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Inca Pots and Jars

Please see the link here... https://americanindian.si.edu/inkaroad/inkauniverse/inkaroadexpansion/road-integration.html Please would someone provide further information on the pottery at the bottom of the page. While suitable for storing water and other liquids, it seems to me that the spike (for want of a better term) would make it very awkward to put the vessel down. Most cups and jars today have a flat base to allow the jar to stand with stability. What was the purpose of the shape shown? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to ask new questions, how about you go back to the science desk and address issues raised about your Canary Islands question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question: Tenerife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This site[1] states the pointed base made for easier pouring. We don't have an article for Arybalo, but we have Greek Aryballos, i don't know if the names are related.—eric 12:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Eric. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, aryballos does seem like the most common name: archive search.—eric 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Pointed bases are stronger than flat bases. A flat base is weak, the corners especially so (modern wine bottles have their dimpled base to avoid this). Also they're easier to store for bulk transport (this can be seen well with amphorae, particularly in shipwrecks. They're also more stable on a flat surface, when that flat surface is no more than an earth floor and the shallow spike can form its own recess. Flat bases to vessels don't make much sense until tables are in widespread use. Many pre-furniture cultures still use many vessels where they're hung from cords, and these have loops and knobs which can support that. A heavy vessel used for pouring is also easier to handle if it has suspension loops which can still support it when tilted for pouring, unlike a flat base. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thanks Andy. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

November 16

amerigo vespucci maps

Did Amerigo Vespucci draw actual maps that were the basis for the Waldseemuller map? Do they still exist?Hoover12345! (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Likely somebody aboard the ship of any explorer of that era would have been responsible for drawing maps, if only for their own use. They may not have always made those maps public, however, as they would provide an advantage over their rivals. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Lefty, please try not to guess the answers until other avenues have been exhausted. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"By 1508, when it became clear that the Casa needed a resident navigational expert, Amerigo Vespucci was named piloto mayor (pilot major) and authorized to examine and license pilots who wanted to navigate ships in the Indies. He was also directed to prepare an official set of maps, or padrón general, of the newly discovered lands. With the imposing name padrón real, or master chart, these were required equipment for all pilots navigating ships to the Indies... So little of his cartographic work has survived that it is nearly impossible to rate it in comparison with that of other cartographers of the time".

The Mapping of the Entradas Into the Greater Southwest edited by Dennis Reinhartz, Gerald D. Saxon (p. 57).

Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The King-Hamy Chart has been attributed to Vespucci, there is some discussion in Hapgood, C. H. (1966). "VII". Maps of the ancient sea kings. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Not sure about Hapgood, he seems to confuse Amerigo and Juan. This was not a source for the Waldseemuller map, according to the article the sources were Caveri and Cantino.—eric 16:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

inner monologue

Has the inner monologue in psychology been studied much from a speech-analysis standpoint? I.e. is it louder for some people than others, have differences in timbre and dynamics, etc.? I think mine might be quieter than most, since I can't hear it if there is background sound such as music or other people's conversations. That is, I get easily distracted by any type of sound, and need quiet surroundings to do anything requiring concentration. E.g. right now I'm trying to read a Wikipedia math article while someone is watching TV in the next room, and it's difficult.

Also, is there a name for the above as a psychological condition? Not misophonia or hyperacusis which mean that the external sounds are painful or distressing. If someone is playing music not too loudly, it can be nice music and I can enjoy relaxing and listening to it, but still have trouble focusing on anything else. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Since it doesn't involve the ears, I wouldn't expect any audio quality to be associated with it at all. Similar to reading. Of course, if you are in a noisy environment, that is apt to cause a distraction, and some are more easily distracted by this than others, with the popular expression that "it's so loud I can't hear myself think". SinisterLefty (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some are more distracted than others but I'm wondering if there is a name for being unusually distracted. Like there are supertasters, and maybe "super distractees". As for audio quality of the internal monologue, mine certainly has one. I thought it was a form of audiation. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Being particularly annoyed by noise is a feature of autism spectrum disorder, which is fairly common. Being easily distracted is a feature of attention deficit disorder, also fairly common. If you suspect either, consult a doctor. SinisterLefty (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh great (not), but on the other hand, if there's a pill that fixes it, I'm game ;-) I don't think I'm unusually distractable in general, just in particular by noise. You know the mental shift you make if you want to listen intently to something, so more of your awareness goes into your hearing? That's what I do when I try to think hard. So any sounds present stop me from thinking. I know that the famous mathematician von Neumann was the opposite, and he could work easily in noisy environments. That would sure come in handy for me sometimes. I'm finding the article cocktail party effect informative, though it's not exactly what I'm looking for. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You might just try some earplugs, ear buds playing music without lyrics (or relaxing nature sounds), or noise cancelling headphones. SinisterLefty (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

BTDT. Earplugs cause ear pain and tinnitus. Noise cancelling headphones take out low frequency street noise etc. which is nice, but they don't help at speech frequencies. Music adds MORE sound instead of removing sound so it's the wrong thing too. Being able to simply sit around quietly and work on something seems to have become a luxury reserved for kings and queens. Oh well. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Such luxury would probably take some of its essence from a talisman disguised as some obscure order's ribbons and cross. But to reveal it's magic your own layman's talisman will have to work like a pendulum: what you've stored in it for your intents displayed back and preemptive into your view. Or a small metronome which casing could also hold some inspiring, and relaxing pictures. That is, the drawbacks of pendulums are fetishism, which can be a very bad thing, and mimetism which would drag you into it indirectly, if the system worked and unfortunately started to catching on too. Worth considering also and also tricking a string, the bilboquet, the yo-yo, and clackers. Such jugglery toys can be handled following various strategies, for example leaving the toy in order to become free of refocusing and studying the math. More importantly such toys have the benefit of recentering your personal or individual scenery at yourself, because you're the one to re-introduce the unreasonable or arbitrary disturbance in the global scenery. Unfortunately all these jugglery sets act in a vertical plane (note that a pendulum is handled in a vertical plane, but can be used to focus on an horizontal tracing). That same vertical plane is the one for computer screens, which is probably why some people uncertain with their smartphone coming your way in the street - or backstage, you'll see - will tend to point to you with it holding it flat and pretending that you're not there. They are recentering the scene at themselves. They may even fancy you are walking a pendulum. Trying to establish that if you had it your way you would be walking a pendulum. But in the end, anyway, in any case of disturbance it's not the concrete level of sound that matters until it becomes objectively unbearable. I don't think any inner speech is to be lost while evolving at a reasonable distance from the loudspeakers at an hard-rock concert, if you're a fan; rather the opposite. --Askedonty (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The usual problem with speech is that it causes us to pay attention to try to understand it. Music (without words) or nature sounds won't do that, and will hopefully drown out any speech we would otherwise strain to hear. Noise cancelling headphones can also have sound-proofing to block speech frequencies, as those are easiest to block that way. (Low-frequencies either require much thicker sound-proofing, or noise-cancelling technology.) You can also get passive noise protection without the electronics, for far less money: [2]. And you could combine ear buds and headphones, for more noise reduction. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Engraving of Burning Idols in Tahiti

Trying to find the original publication of this engraving of the burning of idols (Tahitian tiki) in Tahiti [3]. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Davies, John (1961). The history of the Tahitian Mission 1799-1830. p. 194. credited London Missionary Society, Missionary Sketches, VI, July 1819.—eric 01:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Can't find that volume on worldcat, but should be good enough if you are just uploading to commons.—eric 01:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the full image.—eric 02:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a Google Books preview here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's Missionary Sketches VI. No publication information in that collection, but July, 1819 as a periodical looks first.—eric 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, that version was missing pages, this one is better.—eric 14:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Mussolini's Hat

What is the name of the type of hat Mussolini is wearing in this picture? 108.21.79.135 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a type of fez, worn by the MVSN (Blackshirts). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! 108.21.79.135 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

See Arditi Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Various forms of Fascist caps and fezes are shown here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Try to imagine Hitler wearing a beret. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to put a lid on that thought. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's hoping. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I did Nazi that coming! Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Praising a thank for that edit - an expression new to me well suited to some my needs - . --Askedonty (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I once tried to change Tommy Cooper's fez to a tarboosh, and the kind IP response I received was: "I can't believe the stupidity of your revert. He wore a fez and only the most insanely pedantic wikipedia editor would wish to change that fact of history." So I think I'll leave this well alone. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hm, wait, and see ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nazi pride. He didn't want to lose fez. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh! Shameful! Not to be confused with that small town in Bangladesh. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

or Morocco. --Jayron32 13:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Lady Selbourne's diary

Who was "Lady Selbourne", whose 1765 diary entry is quoted in s:Page:Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham.djvu/97 and otherwise mentioned online only in sources quoting that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly Lady Sophia Carteret (1745-1771), the first wife of William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne. She appears to have written a diary (see here. There are probably better sources, but it does show the text including "the making of guns" as quoted in Showell's Dictionary). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: Thank you. See also s:Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, in whcih extracts of the diary were published. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 17

Agatha Christie

I would be grateful if a user could please inform me which journals publish scholarly articles on the writings of Agatha Christie? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Some random journal articles from a quick Google search:

• Agatha Christie's learning disability.
• Agatha Christie, Pharmacist
• 'If Not Yourself, Who Would You Be?’: Writing the Female Body in Agatha Christie's Second World War Detective Fiction
• Murder and Emancipation: Agatha Christie and Critical Qualitative Methods
• The Flavour of Murder: Food and Crime in the Novels of Agatha Christie
• The Retitling of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Niggers in Anglophone and Lusophone Markets

Hope that helps. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata has details of many; which may be visualised in Scholia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Number of tenured professors in the U.S.

I didn't find a number in Professors in the United States, and I couldn't find one anywhere else on the web either. Can anybody help? --Stilfehler (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The National Center for Education Statistics has data for Title IV schools, here's full time/tenured for 2013.—eric 22:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note in case you're trying to compare with other countries, the US uses the title 'professor' for a far wider range of roles than most other countries do. Something to be aware of. Fgf10 (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!! --Stilfehler (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 18

Presumption of Innocence & the Me Too movement

Is it just me or does the legal concept of presumption of innocence get brought up in discussions surrounding sexual harassment and sexual assault much more than than any other types of crimes such as murder especially in light of the #Metoo movement in the United States?

For example, if you are an anime fan, you probably have known about the huge and polarizing controversy around the English dub voice actor Vic Mignogna. In this case, his #StandwithVic defenders have brought this principle up in the heated discourse quite often to the point where we #Kickvic have to use the fact that Vic was the plaintiff suing his accusers to counter this particular argument. I mean, you don't see this kind of behavior with other types of crimes especially if you are familiar with high-profile cases. I am pretty sure quite a huge portion of the general public believed that OJ Simpson was guilty long before he lost his civil suit and it is quite obvious that quite a lot of people already believe that Jussie Smollette is guilty of making up a racial hoax and no longer stand by him. Then there is the media circus surrounding the Scott Peterson case and the Disappearance of Susan Powell case in which the obvious perpetrator did not even get arrested. If there is any academic communication studies about this, I would like a link to it. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Its an old basic rule already present in roman law but in the end justice is foremost forced to be a representation of the judicial worldview of the majority of society - which it must be to keep its moral superior position as "independent" judge. From pure judicial view or more correctly judicial logic this opens a huge portal for critics but thats just a consequence of keeping the system accepted by the majority. --Kharon (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How did Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor die?

As I've just commented on the article talk page, our article makes two claims: that he died of disease and that he died of being beaten to death.

Any reliable sources? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. If he was beaten, this could have caused wounds which then became infected, causing death. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not really being beaten to death. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Back then, the cause of death wasn't always apparent. If he was beaten, and there were signs of infection, then he died, it wouldn't have been clear which was the cause. He could have still died from hemorrhaging, for example. Even now, when somebody dies and they don't have an autopsy, they basically just guess at the cause of death for the death certificate. But the best we can do to determine the cause of historic deaths of that era is to scour sources for a list of the symptoms, then try to do a modern diagnosis. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Also note that William McKinley died of infection subsequent to being shot, but it's still considered to be an assassination. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia says that Otto's death was caused by diarrhea. There is no mention of anyone beating him to death. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not a cause of death, it's a symptom. Disease could cause that, perhaps with dehydration being the actual cause of death. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

At least it is more than idle speculation without doing even a tiny search. Bernd Schneidmüller: Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung (819–1252). Stuttgart 2000, p. 266. In: Bernd Ulrich Hucker, Stefanie Hahn, Hans-Jürgen Derda (Hrsg.): Otto IV. Traum vom welfischen Kaisertum. Petersberg 2009, p. 281–288. Should be the sources for the cause of death, or symptom leading to death if we want to be pedantic.80.138.66.157 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

So, he may have had a beating, but not a fatal one? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No. No beating mentioned near the end of his life at all. I would think the claim is a hoax or vandalism. At least from what i gathered and thecomplete lack of mention of any beating leading to his death other than here. 80.138.66.157 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's a reliable source in the article, footnoted AND directly attributed to the historian Ernst Kantorowicz, saying he was beaten to death. What is the reliable source saying he died of disease? --Jayron32 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• German Wikipedia lists a source (this is the Wikipedia translation), but it's unclear if this source is just for his will, or if it also covers the cause of death: Bernd Schneidmüller: The Welfs. Reign and Remembrance (819-1252). Stuttgart 2000, p. 266. Cf. the detailed description by Claudia Lydorf: "Who is it that we are negotiating about my life, since it is none more?" Will and death of Emperor Otto IV. In: Bernd Ulrich Hucker, Stefanie Hahn , Hans-Jürgen Derda (ed.): Otto IV. Dream of the Welf emperor. Petersberg 2009, p. 281-288. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Presumably they are used for both death and direct aftermath. Certainly is getting curious now.80.138.66.157 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• There is always the possibility that there is a disagreement over his cause of death. The 13th century is a LONG time ago, and it is not unreasonable to say that we just don't know which version of events is certain. --Jayron32 17:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Of course possible but being bloodily beaten to death by clergy, of all people, seems hardly something there would be huge disagreement over, no? Still possible of course but... not like it was between two natural causes or whatever. Switched to the desktop by the way in case the IP changed. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised. Edward II of England, who lived 100 years after the aforementioned Otto either had a hot poker shoved up his ass, died by natural causes, was strangled, starved, beaten to death, etc. The ultimate answer is we have no idea how Edward II died. We are pretty sure he's dead by now, but he basically gets stuffed into prison and then disappears from the historical record. There's a lot of ex-post-facto stories circulating, and depending on how much the many-years-later historian had a reason to like or dislike Edward, the more gruesome the manner of his death becomes. The red-hot-poker-up-the-ass version is the most memorable, but it is certainly not any more certain than any of the other possibilities. For a ruler some 100 years older still than Edward II was, I would not be any more surprised that we don't have good information. --Jayron32 19:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mysterious deaths or disappearances of leaders still occur in modern times. See Disappearance of Harold Holt. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• From the article about Kantorowicz regarding the book used as source: "Instead of offering a more typical survey of laws, institutions, and important political and military achievements of Frederick's reign, the book struck a distinctly panegyrical tone, portraying Frederick as a tragic hero and the idealized embodiment of the German nation. It included no footnotes and seemed to elide historical events with more fanciful legends and propagandistic literary depictions. The work elicited a combination of bewilderment and criticism from the mainstream historical academy. Reviewers complained that it was literary myth-making and not a work of serious historical scholarship. As a result, Kantorowicz published a hefty companion volume (Ergänzungsband) in 1931 which contained detailed historical documentation for the biography." Now it seems he did try to justify himself afterwards but... is that book really something that is even reliable by Wikipedia standards, especially on its own without the companion guide? No idea what the perception was after 'expanding' the book but... this does not sound promising to be honest. But then again, it is only from a wiki article and unsourced itself haha. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's a very good point; I would say in that case it seems like Kantorowicz is not a good source, and any information from it should be stricken from the article, or if it must remain, to add an explanatory note saying that most historians think his work is bullshit. --Jayron32 17:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• On top of that he was involved in German ultra-nationalism as well in his youth, so more or less when he wrote the book. Despite being part jewish. This is getting more and more bizarre lol. Medievalist Norman Cantor even went as far as saying "but for his Jewish heritage, the young Kantorowicz could be considered a Nazi in terms of his intellectual temperament and cultural values." Now that is NOT universally accepted but... yeah not a good light. Especially because the book in question was written in his younger days. Which in my mind taints each and everything the man said regarding german history. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

this site in german (tranlation) might state that he suffered the "thin schiszin", but ordered his own cook to beat him as penitence. You may not find that reliable.—eric 17:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably not good enough? Was written by one Klaus Röttger, who is not a historian but was a journalist for a local paper, if i was not stupid and actually looked for the correct person, at least. But i think that journo should be him. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe it could be he blamed his cook for the dysentery and kicked him in the neck. A German speaker might be required.—eric 17:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Google translation of the relevent bits from that source:

"A well-meaning friend sent him therefore a new drug for cleaning stomach and intestines in pill form. Whatever it contained, the effect was terrible. The entire digestion broke down. The "thin schiszin", as Eike von Repkow called the condition, probably the Ruhr, in the language of his time a little disrespectful, became so bad that it was said that on the night of the 12th to the 13th of May ... penitential, he humbled himself, because he was full of "unspeakable remorse," in every way imaginable. He ordered his cooks to kick him on the neck, threw himself on the ground with bared back and let himself be beaten with rods until even the monks were moved by "such penitence"...In short, it came to an end... However, he took his time...But on 19 May 1218 the time had come: the Emperor died peacefully, more or less calmed down."

This leaves the possibility the self-imposed beating killed him eventually, or a disease caused by the pill, or just poisoning from the pill. We remain as confused as ever. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Small addition by a native speaker, Ruhr is dysentry. Did not get translated. And the 'rods' with which he was chastised is also a rather imperfect translation i think. Or are those those parts of 'bushes' or twigs bundled together called rods in english? Like as an unrelated example for practically the same thing: the german Santa canes children that don't behave. That sort of thing was used when chastising oneself or having people do it. Twigs and the like that break the skin after a while, which surely does not help a dying man, but is not a 'real' beating either. Or were there more substantial objects used when doing pennance? That still leaves the thing with the cooks though. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel sorry for those who live in the Ruhr valley. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If you ever been there, it is shocking how apt the name actually is :P 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Dysentery does cause diarrhea, so that's consistent. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a primary source describing Otto's death, the Narratio de morte Ottonis iv., allegedly an eyewitness report. I haven't been able to find an online version to check, but as I understand it, Otto was terminally ill from a complete collapse of the digestive system. Fearing eternal damnation (he seems to have been excommunicated from the Church or at least in conflict with it) he ordered himself to be beaten as a means of atonement. Whether the actual cause of death was the illness or the beating is anybody's guess and not terribly interesting. As to the reliability of the narratio, this is for historians to judge, but it's probably the only source that we have. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

From here, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum. p. 1373. but looks to be the wrong page. Milman, H. H. (1883). History of Latin christianity. pp. 58–9. cites and has an english summary.—eric 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The page is correct, but the volume is the wrong one. You want tomus tertius. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

grapes vinegar for religious Muslims - allowed?

Is it allowed for religious Muslims to consume vinegar that made of grapes? I'm asking it because I know that vine is forbidden for muslim but I'm not sure about vinegar. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)