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.

February 12

Online introduction to transaction cost theory

Is there a good introduction to transaction cost theory somewhere on the net? Best as text or video 2A02:908:424:9D60:8447:A3C6:50F5:A472 (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may try Transaction cost and see where this takes you. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

British Folklore

What literature features the character Morgan Le Fey? 2601:204:C002:B1F0:93:30E5:CACF:8FD0 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Morgan Le Fey has long sections on literature. Please read the article, then come back if you think it is insufficient. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pl help confirm 'First Muslim Woman Who Cycled The World'

I find this news "Story Of First Muslim Woman Who Cycled The World" on Iranian media ifpnews and only other ref on google is https://www.ibna.ir/en/report/175118/mahdavi-nader-my-book-is-a-souvenir-of-peace

Pl help in fact checking there is no other publicly known Muslim woman to make similar claim. If we do not find any other then I plan to include the claim in the article. Bookku (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, Bookku, I have been reading about women who have cycled around the world and they are amazing. None identified as Muslim, but I am only able to search in certain European languages. Have you thought about asking at the Language desk for native speakers who might be able to help you search in Arabic, Indonesian, Persian, Kazakh, Urdu, etc? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, That seems to be a good idea. Bookku (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putin's and other rogues' Twitter accounts

Seeing with some surprise that Putin's official Twitter account has still not been blocked so far, and reading this, I wonder how these inconsistencies in Twitter's blocking policy with regard to foreign leaders come about. Hildeoc (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot read Elon Musk's mind. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc -- Search Google for newsworthiness exemption twitter for some ideas. Twitter has never enforced consistent standards (and has taken a right-turn under Musk), but it has lacked the special sanctimonious hypocrisy of Facebook in the face of repeated scandals, and so maybe has received a little less criticism than it should... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a saying originating from something Napoleon Bonaparte said at the Battle of Austerlitz: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

"Short and distort" vs "Bear raid" - same thing?

I was looking up a news article about the current Adani scandal, and they used the term "short and distort (bear raid)"

Now, my question is not at all specific to Adani, so let's please not get into a discussion about that particular situation.

Rather, here on Wikipedia, we have two separate articles: short and distort, and bear raid.

Before I suggest a merger of the two, I'd like to ask here: is there any difference in the meaning or use of the two terms?

And if the answer is "no, they're the same thing", which of the two terms is more commonly used?

Obligatory ping @John M Baker:, You're our corporate lawyer; what are your thoughts? Are the two terms identical in law, or different? Others feel free to answer too, of course.

Eliyohub (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you're talking about Adani Group? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In concept, these are two different things. In a bear raid, the short sales themselves force the price down, and the idea is that the short seller(s) will then cover the short at the depressed price. This is market manipulation and is illegal. It was thought that bear raids were a major problem early in the 20th century, and the Securities and Exchange Commission was in part established to combat them. But bear raids don’t really work: The short sales may lower the stock price, but covering the short raises the price, so the short seller can’t count on making anything.

In a short and distort, the short sellers spread false information intended to harm the stock price, so the short can be covered at a profit. This is securities fraud, and of course it is illegal. The deception, in other words, is in the form of false information, not misleading market activity. Short-and-distort schemes do exist and can work, although they are less common than some people like to suppose.

In practice, I suppose that bear raiders distorted as well as shorted, and of course short-and-distort fraudsters also take into account the market effects of their shorts. But the focus and the history of the two terms are different. The supposed bear raids played an important role in the early history of the securities laws, while short and distort is a much more recent term. John M Baker (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good explanation. I think you could improve both articles and make it clearer why they're not quite the same thing, maybe each article referencing the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be noted that it is pretty common for company officers, when short sellers make allegations about the company, to throw a fit and accuse the sellers of engaging in unlawful or unethical stock manipulation schemes, regardless of the truth of such claims. There are a litany of historical examples; Enron's officers can probably be found having said unkind words about "shorts" with a little digging. Very broadly, stating true things about a company while also holding short positions in it is not generally disallowed in most jurisdictions. I know nothing about the background to Adani here. I note the article states Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman said Hindenburg's Adani Report was "highly credible and extremely well researched. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant and the unconditional duty to always tell the truth

Immanuel Kant said that there is an absolute moral duty never to lie to anybody. Against this stance, there is a famous counter-example:

A home owner harbors a persecuted Jew from the Gestapo.

The Gestapo officers ring the doorbell, and ask whether he's hiding a fugitive.

Dutifully, the home owner says "yes".

Here, most if not all people would assume a moral duty to lie in order to protect the life of somebody else.

But yet the persecuted Jew stays at the house, under the implicit agreement that the other person would shield him. If he could not trust the home owner, he'd seek another hideout. After all, if he deemed the Jew a unwelcome guest, he would have called the police much earlier - with much lower risks of getting punished himself.

Fulfilling the duty to answer the Gestapo truthfully would inevitably mean breaking his previous duty to his guest. It would rob him of his agency (e.g. finding a new abode in time).

Why do people think this example is valid? Keimzelle (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's the thing, first you define the moral code, then you define what is good or bad in relation to that code. If Kant has established, in his moral code that telling the truth is a greater good than protecting a life, that is his prerogative. This example demonstrates that. If you're asking in your moral code, would this be a good thing, that's something you'd have to decide for yourself. In my moral code, it is decidedly not. But I am not Kant. Ask him. (or inquire within his writings, since he's dead). --Jayron 32 12:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the question "Why do people think this example is valid?". For what it's worth, Kant's essay has been discussed in a lot of publications (a quick search shows this, which calls Kant's essay "notorious" and summarizes that "[Kant's] claim is so clearly abhorrent that many writers have attempted to save Kant from himself by offering interpretations of the essay that are more in keeping with common sense"; and this, which seems to be doing just that, trying to salvage Kant's argument by demonstrating he didn't mean it quite as unconditionally as it's usually been understood) In all of these discussions, an example analogous to the one you gave is typically cited (saving a friend who's been hiding in one's house from a would-be murderer enquiring about him). In fact, that very example is given by Kant himself at the very outset of his essay, where he is citing it as an argument used by the person he's responding to (Benjamin Constant), who had in turn used it against another unnamed "German philosopher" (here's the German original; couldn't quickly find an Entlish translation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was Kant just messing with our minds? Murder is also a great sin. And if the homeowner in that parable gives his houseguest to the Nazis, then he is complicit in the murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll have to read Kant to find out. (Or some of the secondary literature on the topic, which is plentiful.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know what Kant's general stance on murder was? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read Kant, but from what I've read about him, I'm sure he would argue that we have a duty not to murder. The issue is that he was trying to derive moral rules about how people should always behave, based on the (as I understand it) internal logic of the actions and explicitly not on the consequences of the actions. So lying is always wrong, murder is always wrong, and lying doesn't become right just because it prevents someone else doing wrong. Iapetus (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Kant never heard of the "greater sin" philosophy. While it may be a sin to lie, it's a greater sin to be complicit in murder. And by the way, if he's basing it on the Ten Commandments, he's got it wrong. It doesn't say not to lie. It says not to bear false witness. For example, claiming someone committed a crime when they didn't. Or vice versa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt either the concept of "sin" or the Ten Commandments would have played any role in Kant's thinking. You should really consult the Categorical imperative article; it explains it quite well. The whole point of it is that he's seeking for moral imperatives that can be derived from rational logic alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that he hadn't heard of it, its that he rejected it on principle. I tend towards supporting consequentialist ethics, and I suspect from your comments that you do to. Kant however believed in Deontological ethics, which argue that morality should be based on absolute rules rather than something as flexible as the consequences of actions. Kant in particular appears to have believed that there is a fundamental moral difference between harm caused by an action, and harm caused by an inaction. Personally, I think a lot of Kant's reasoning spurious and conclusions dangerous, but there certainly was reasoning behind his arguments, not just quoting the Ten Commandments. Iapetus (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main Wikipedia article on this is Categorical imperative... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks – that puts the later essay in its context. So the unnamed "German philosopher" in Kant's later exchange with Constant was in fact Kant himself (which is what I suspected, but didn't research further.) Constant came up with the murderer-at-the-door example to criticize Kant's ideas, and then Kant responded with that essay on the "Supposed right to lie from Philanthropy". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the original premise is inaccurate. Kant didn't argue that you had a duty to tell everyone everything they wanted to know. He argued that you had a duty not to lie. Kant considered it perfectly acceptable to refuse to answer the would-be murderer. (Although in the case of a gestapo agent rather than a generic "would-be murderer" that's probably going to go very badly for both the principled non-answerer and whoever they were sheltering). Iapetus (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would deception be morally different from outright lying? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know whether Kant would have distinguished deception morally from lying, deception has not been mentioned here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not by name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, except by you. Remaining silent is not deception. --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It's just a fact. --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not arguing for deception, he's arguing for defiance. Iapetus (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the mere act of hiding the guest is deceptive and that mute "defiance" against a Nazi, in this case, would not likely stop them from proceeding further with their inquest and betraying the unfortunate guest. Lying and/or further deception might. Defiance? Not really since their silent stance is complicit. Modocc (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A witness at a trial is routinely directed by the judge to say "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." My response is "I promise to tell the truth. I can't begin to know the Whole Truth so I won't lie about that." Would you judge my reply as Contempt of court? Philvoids (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try and tell us about it. --Lambiam 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather obviously (IMHO), the meaning of the formula is not a promise to reveal the truth value of P = NP but a promise not to tell half-truths. A defiant act such as this will almost certainly be interpreted as being disrespectful of the process of the court, but if you are lucky the presiding judge will first issue a warning and give you a change to redeem yourself. --Lambiam 12:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philvoids -- That oath basically means all the truth known by you which is legally relevant. I think that you're off the hook for any non-legally-relevant metaphysical dilemmas or imperfect knowledge of the minutiae of universe... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My lords I renounce nothing. Here I stand. I can do no other. Philvoids (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT and Bob Dylan

Following recent analysis on the Science desk of the technical achievement by ChatGPT in inventing a Shakespearean sonnet I show for evaluation a song text that ChatGPT considers to capture the style of Bob Dylan in the 1960s. I emphasize this is chatbot generated text.

Verse 1:
The world is changing, can't you feel the shift?
The old order's crumbling, can't you sense the rift?
The people are rising, won't be silenced anymore
Their voices grow louder, like a lion's roar

Chorus:
Don't turn away, don't close your eyes
It's time to face the truth, it's time to rise
Together we'll stand, we'll fight for what's right
We won't back down, we'll keep up the fight

Verse 2:
The times they are a-changin', and we can't stand still
The winds of change are blowing, and we must bend to their will
We can't keep hiding, we can't turn a blind eye
We must stand for justice, and raise our voices high

Chorus:
Don't turn away, don't close your eyes
It's time to face the truth, it's time to rise
Together we'll stand, we'll fight for what's right
We won't back down, we'll keep up the fight

Verse 3:
We can't keep ignoring, the suffering of our fellow man
We can't keep profiting, from the blood on their hands
We must speak out, against the violence and hate
We must unite, before it's too late

Chorus:
Don't turn away, don't close your eyes
It's time to face the truth, it's time to rise
Together we'll stand, we'll fight for what's right
We won't back down, we'll keep up the fight

Outro:
The world is changing, and so must we
We'll keep on fighting, until we're all free.

To what extent does ChatGBT succeed in emulating Bob Dylan here? Can we detect how it has been done, for example "The times they are a-changin'" is recognizable as a copy of Dylan's 1964 song title. A chatbot cannot sing or play music so here a singer/musician can say whether the piece is performable. The OpenAI Terms of Use explicitly assigns to its users (i.e., me today) "all its right, title and interest in and to [such] Output." so I see no copyright restraint on performing the song. Philvoids (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me these bot-lyrics address the sort of themes that Dylan did, and do a fair job with a (sometimes broken) metre not untypical of him. However, they stick to a more basic vocabulary than he would, lack any inventive or poetic turns of phrase (even ones copied from him), and worst of all talk with bludgeoning directness about the matters being addressed rather than using more memorable and effective metaphors. Unless the music was particularly outstanding, I'd probably respond with "Yeah, Man, we all know that." rather than "Right on, that'll make people sit up and take notice."

The moral (as opposed to legal) acceptability of training writing or art bots on other creators' material and then putting the result (even if humanly improved) into the market (perhaps undercutting actual artists) is something that is being fiercely debated. For the moment I'm tentatively against using them other than for private amusement. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor. This is the sort of thing that some of Dylan's less talented contemporaries in the early 1960s folk revival might have produced. It is more overtly leftist than most of his work, less ambiguous, less cynical and far less creative. It is optimistic in ways that Dylan rarely was in those days, and completely botches the use of "blood on their hands" metaphor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to have them judged by people who don't know they are chatbot generated. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an interesting experiment, but as a former professional editor I'm entirely capable of evaluating the qualities of a piece of text on its own merits without regard to the identity (or nature) of its author. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next to the very un-Dylanesque directness, the "protest songs" of the sixties and early seventies in general rarely contained an explicit call to action – one exception being Bob Marley and Peter Tosh's "Get Up, Stand Up". Ideologically, for the left-libertarian Zeitgeist of the epoch, the notion that we must bend to the will of the "winds of change" is peculiar. A whiff of the orthodox Marxist thesis of the inevitability of revolutionary change? --Lambiam 09:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, it created a generic protest song, but it missed two key aspects of Dylan's writing (IMHO) 1) Dylan's songs rarely follow rigid structure that closely. He tends to drift from rigidly following meter, structure, and rhyme, where he'll establish a pattern, say have the first two verses be four lines each, but break it in verse 3 where he has 5 or 6 lines (just as one example, he does other things in this vein too). Consider something like A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, verse one has a 2-5-2 line pattern, verse 2 and 3 go 2-7-2, verse 4 goes 2-6-2 and so on. He plays with structure like that all the time. 2) Dylan's lyrics are much more nuanced, complex, and multi-layered. He's rarely only got a single meaning behind his songs, there's often a narrative meaning, some political meaning, and perhaps some intensely personal meaning (often an insult directed at maybe 1 person) all in the same text. Something like Ballad of a Thin Man is at once a general criticism of the media, a specific narrative of events that really happened to Dylan, and some really rude insinuations and double-entendres all rolled into one, often all three meanings are in the same line or couplet. Dylan's writing is almost always like this. There's almost always a wonderful juxtaposition of the personal and the general, of the narrative and the philosophical. The above ChatGPT song has none of that. --Jayron 32 13:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strikingly awful, like a series of Hallmark cards aimed at protesting hippies. Card Zero (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cliches like "before it's too late", "bend to their will", "we'll keep up the fight", "time to face the truth" permeate it, whatever it is, unlike actual lyrics. Seriously, it's beyond bad, it is a climatic script of "fight for what's right" platitudes that is more sterile and tone-deaf than alien Vogon poetry. Of course "we can't turn a blind eye"! Such stupid cliches are invoked again and again. It is a self-inflicted torrent of spitballs because its algorithm primarily regurgitated what's already been written. Modocc (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

Death date of (William) Walker Hodgson

Various sources list Walker Hodgson, artist, as "1864-active 1923". Can we do better, and find his date of death?

He "arrived in London from Newcastle upon Tyne in 1889". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. Per the National Portrait Gallery, London: "Little is known about Hodgson and he does not feature in the literature on late nineteenth-century artists." Further Google Searches have been frustrated by someone with the similar name of William Hodgson-Walker. --Jayron 32 14:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I managed to Google him (searching for Walker Hodgson -"William Hodgson-Walker" seems to resolve the latter issue) I was hoping people might have access to, for example, genealogy sources - we've solved similar mysteries in the past. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the British Newspaper Archive so far I've found a Mr Walker Hodgson who emigrated from Blyth to Canada in 1903 and had five sons fighting in the Second World War, another who was Lord Mayor of Bradford, and a third who ran a whist drive in the Lake District. A few mentions of illustrations by presumably your chap from the 1900s-ish. Nothing in The Times that I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: William Walker Hodgson born 1864, died 11 June 1946 at Great Burstead in Essex, residence "The Retreat", Great Burstead. Burial date 15 June 1946. From Essex Burial Index 1530-1994, Essex Record Office, Archive Reference D/P 139/1/27, via Findmypast. "The Retreat" was the former Billericay Union Workhouse, at the time of Hodgson's death it was a Public Assistance Institution. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Birth record, born in the first quarter of 1864, in the registration district of Darlington, in County Durham, mother's maiden name Graham. The 1921 Census has him as an artist working for Byron Studio, 8 Farington Avenue EC. Living at 38 Westley Rd, SE5. He was single, and boarding with the Smith family. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Marvelous; thank you - it means his works are out of copyright so can be added to/ kept on Commons. I've updated his Wikidata entry accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

Please, can you find who was the noblewoman in this painting? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.110.100 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to nail down to a specific person. I've searched paintings from the mid-1500s (which is when this style of clothes would have been popular) and nothing really matches. It's so simplified, it may be impossible to nail down who (if any person) was used as the original model. Broadly, the person is wearing a Doublet, a type of coat that was popular at the time. If this is a female, there were dresses that were designed with similar stylings as well. The closed neckline seems to indicate likely 1550ish, the first half of the 1500s had much more open styles, while the second half of the 1500s was known for high collars and ruffs. This seems like something in between. --Jayron 32 13:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That television show features many paintings that are done in the style of popular artwork. The paintings represented are not actual paintings in the real world. They only exist within the television show. Therefore, the noble woman would be some noble woman from the television show that has an appearance somewhat similar to a multitude of various women in the real world. If the television show states who it is within the narrative of the show, you would have an answer. I strongly doubt that the show has ever made reference to her because they don't make reference to the other paintings. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is the OP going to keep asking this kind of question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found in the past that at least one of these pictures was taken from an actual painting in the real world. Card Zero (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Padilla

Hi, can anyone find what Padilla has been up to since c. 2005? My impression is she is still alive, but it would be nice to bring this article up-to-date, if only to say that she "fully retired in [year]"... Any other dates people might be able to find, such as the dates she worked at NYU and Michigan State would also be greatly appreciated. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She spoke on her work at Hunter College on 4 April 2010. [1]. She'd be 97 today, it is likely (if alive) she is enjoying her retirement at some level. --Jayron 32 23:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

History vs current events

Sometimes, getting long term views of current events can be difficult because not much time has passed since the event occurred. There are a lot of viewpoints regarding how long events should pass before we get a long term historical view without being affected by current events. For example, post-1992 US politics and post-1978 Iranian politics are considered contentious topics on Wikipedia since they are heavily influenced by recent events. In the essay of WP:Recentism, it mentions the 10 or 20 year test as a way to evaluate events. The history and AskHistorians subreddit on Reddit prohibits discussions on events that happened less than 20 years ago. Another argument is that all events that have happened already are considered history without a specific time period of how long the events occurred. I would like to know how long should we wait after an event has occurred before getting a fair, accurate, long-term historical view of the event. One could argue 150 years, 100 years, 50 years, 25 years, 20 years, or 10 years. Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until valid sources tell us that an event or era is "history" rather than "current events". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simple answer, as the question covers virtually all events, regardless of importance, duration, or impact. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My own, personal, rule of thumb: examine the recent sources and who is writing about the event. If most of the authors are journalists, it is still “current events”. If most are historians, then it’s history. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a fallacy: the definition depending on the source, which is defined by the product itself. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this question is calling for opinions and therefore should not be discussed here. --174.89.12.187 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good dividing line between history and contemporaneous events is when the last person who witnessed an event and can recall it dies. 2A00:23C1:E10D:BD01:D172:1AA2:4115:DC5E (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans in Medieval China

I just made a strange discovery of sorts, which is likely attributable to coincidence more than anything else, but I'm also wondering if there might be something more to it. Our article on Europeans in Medieval China and Chronology of European exploration of Asia covers a few historical points of interest here and there, but I haven't seen much to answer my question, which is this: is it in any way conceivable that in the 12th century, the Benedictines somehow got their hands on a copy of the Blue Cliff Record (~1125) from Hunan? As synchronicity would have it, I was recently listening to a teisho on case 19 from the BCR (which may not be relevant), when I had the sudden realization that many of the teachings from the BCR were oddly similar to teachings from Hildegard of Bingen, who was coincidentally active a decade after the BCR was compiled, from 1136 until the 1170s. Is there any possibility that Benedictine monks in Germany could have been aware of Buddhist works in China? Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious influences only overcame geographic distances and barriers between major religious traditions by slow convoluted indirect routes -- see Barlaam and Josaphat. It was pretty much impossible for Western European Christians to be informed on recent developments of Chinese Buddhist sects at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the old, conventional wisdom, that people were isolated and not in contact with other parts of the world. But that version of history has been increasingly challenged in other areas, such as the slow acceptance of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, only some of which have become mainstream since the 1970s. There's evidence of ancient Chinese ocean capable trade ships going back to the 10th century, for example. Far older than that, you have ancient trade routes like the Amber Road, which could connect with routes (land or sea?) by the Mongols during the Song Dynasty at the time. The dynasty article even says that Christian Byzantine emperor Michael VII Doukas visited China in 1081. The article on the Mongol invasion of Europe, which took place two centuries later, also covers this kind of movement. Clearly, the routes from Germany to China were long and arduous, but also possible. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how any of that would help Hildegard von Bingen living on the Rhine river to know about recent developments in offshoots of Chinese Buddhism. The Chinese ships were in the Indian Ocean (a long way from the Rhine), and the largest and most far-traveled of the Chinese Indian Ocean expeditions came several centuries after Hildegard von Bingen's death. Her lifetime was also before the Mongol empire brought the land routes from the middle east to China under a single rule, and Christians in China were overwhelmingly Nestorians who had little friendship for Catholics, and the people going back and forth on the trade routes were usually practical merchants. There was definitely no trade direct from Germany to China; look at the A.D. 1212 trade routes map in Colin McEvedy's "Atlas of Medieval History" to see what there was... AnonMoos (talk)

To address your point about Hildegard living on the Rhine, our biography on her says: "Her preaching was not limited to the monasteries; she preached publicly in 1160 in Germany. She conducted four preaching tours throughout Germany, speaking to both clergy and laity in chapter houses and in public…She traveled widely during her four preaching tours." The article also mentions that Hildegard had visitors, in particular, people who played the role of teachers. Surely, with all her travels and visitors, Hildegard learned about ideas from the greater world at large. It’s also likely that some kind of Invisible College existed for ideas considered heretical or outside the acceptance of the religious community. Further, Buddhism had a thousand years to transmit itself throughout these regions, with Buddhism in China having already been present for more than 500 years. Lastly, our article on Buddhism in Europe, notes that it was well known and established but had "little impact". While I admit it is highly unlikely that Hildegard knew anything about Chinese Buddhist texts, the subject of crypto-Buddhism in antiquity and in Christianity in general has been a third rail for religious scholars for centuries. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hildegard von Bingen probably could have heard of Barlaam and Josaphat, if it was circulating in her area, but it's extremely improbable that she had access to recent developments in offshoots of Chinese Buddhism. You seem to be setting up esoteric entities for which there is little or no ascertainable historical evidence. AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See route from the Varangians to the Greeks, Raffelstetten customs regulations, and the Silk Road. Please make note of the trade route between Kiev and Regensburg. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP, that it is conceivable that in the 12th century, the Benedictines somehow got their hands on a copy of the Blue Cliff Record, is inherently yes. The OP conceives of the possibility. We do not, have, however, any evidence to support this notion. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more conceivable that both were indirectly informed by a common, now lost, source. --Lambiam 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But, it’s not lost. If memory serves, the BCR is informed by the greater corpus of old Buddhist literature that it draws upon. I just thought it was an interesting and unusual coincidence that the BCR was written and popularized contemporaneous with Hildegard’s adult life. I also dispute the accepted, conventional notion that people at that time were isolated and relatively unaware of the larger world. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Does the disruptive innovation in science really decline

Look into this.
Does it really happend? 2A02:908:424:9D60:E877:288E:B474:CE46 (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Why would you doubt it? Nature is one of the most prestigious academic journals in the world. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a vindication of the The Low-Hanging Fruit Argument? Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article says, it could just be that there are a lot more researchers putting out dreck per "publish or perish". (There was a question not too long ago about a chemistry[?] paper that spoofed/parodied this.) I'd be more interested in the actual number of breakout papers. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ig Nobel Prize. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book by John Horgan titled The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age which predicts a slowing in fundamental discoveries, which would often require understanding the totality of interactions within extremely complex systems, or impractical tools such as particle accelerators of titanic size, etc. I actually own a copy, but I didn't get far in reading it before a pile of other books accumulated on top of it, so I don't know the details... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the number of published science and technology research papers has exploded in the past five decades or so (see Publish or perish also mentioned above), while the funding for the basic research needed for breakthrough results has not, it would be truly astonishing if the proportion of innovative publications had not drastically decreased. --Lambiam 15:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Economist" wrote about it, too. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive:" paywalled here [[<https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/01/04/papers-and-patents-are-becoming-less-disruptive>]]. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Economist is a report (no byline) of the study by Michael Park, Russell Funk and Erin Leahey, similar to the report in Nature by Max Kozlov linked to in the OP. --Lambiam 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts think that the method used (evaluating a bibliometric index) may be wrong. See, for example, this source (autotraslated). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stock (NAV) formula

So previously, I had thought that people who buy stocks, are putting money into the stock, which causes stock to go up. But now I found a book with a formula that shows the inverse is true. The formula is total assets - liabilities / outstanding shares. So the denominator is the amount of shareholders, as more people buy a stock, the denominator gets bigger, making the stock go down. And so therefore people who sold stocks, makes stocks go up. Am I missing something here? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. The number of shares -- not shareholders, but units of stock -- does not often change, so the denominator stays the same. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USA: is this illegal, question. Bankers.

I hope this question has some aspects to it. Suppose I go to the bank to do something with a bank teller, and they see my real name, the amount of money I have, etc. And then that employee posts on their social media "Guess who came into the bank today?" And posts an approximate amount of money the customer have. Or tells other people in which other people post on social media. Is this illegal, or both a rule and illegal? Cuz I imagine if the banks knew about it, it's against the rules and they would just fire the employee. I imagine this kind of thing is an issue for some some-what famous people. Heh. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

See bank secrecy generally and more specifically Financial privacy laws in the United States. In short, the teller would most likely be violating a law by making your banking information public, although which law would vary depending on the jurisdiction (other countries such as Canada have a national law covering banking secrecy). Xuxl (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O yea, as a 2nd question, I'd like to know if it's legally possible to obtain how much money a person had in their bank accounts, after they died. Is there a statute of limitation for this? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Generally speaking, that kind of question would be settled by the handling of the estate. But I wouldn't think that would be public knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes etc publish lists of extremely wealthy individuals, ranked by net worth. But these are estimates, based on those components of their wealth that is public knowledge. I'm sure the Rupert Murdochs of the world have stacks of $$$ in places that virtually nobody knows about. And I doubt they use banks for their savings anyway. They're more likely to own banks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read that one of the reasons why there weren't many Americans in the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers is because Americans prefer Delaware rather than foreign tax havens. --Error (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

Need source for Powerful Political/Manipulation/Strategy/Ploys preferably "Tactics" that sound like they would be applicable to many people's lives, even if it only seems that way through logical interpretation errors.

Ex. Reverse Psychology, Gaslighting, Scapegoating, Lying, Authority, Interrogation, Selling, Body Language and many more.

Only way I can think to categorize them is as "Tactics" Scanthony (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for any of those items here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Crowd manipulation. Card Zero (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasion tactics target social influence. See our article on persuasion, it includes propaganda, propaganda techniques, psychological warfare, torture, body language, sales techniques, logic, rhetoric, deception, seduction, traditions, the scientific method, manipulation (psychology), etc. Modocc (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One hundred and two thousandths"

In English, it is proper to read whole numbers like this: 102 is one hundred two. Decimals, such as 1.2, are read as "one and two tenths". Thus, "one hundred two thousandths" is .102, but "one hundred and two thousandths" is 100.002. Teachers teach their students not to use the word "and" in naming whole numbers, but in practice many people think it's okay. Why?? What would "one hundred and two thousandths" mean to most people?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dodie_Smith_101_Dalmatians_book_cover.jpg

You seem to have suggested a reason already: without this rule where "and" functions like a verbal decimal point, "one hundred and two thousandths" might mean 0.102. But note that this is only the custom in American English. Card Zero (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Card Zero, does this mean that Canadians always say "one hundred and two"?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or "a hundred and two". That's the short answer without prevaricating about the word "always" (some of them say cent un or cent-et-un). Meanwhile, Americans are most likely in practice to say one-oh-two, I think. Card Zero (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia_guy -- There's often a distinction in the spoken language. If "hundred and two" is pronounced closely together as a single phonological unit, i.e. "hundred-n-two thousandths", then 0.102 would be indicated, while if there's a slight but definite pause after "hundred", and the conjunction "and" is semi-stressed with the vowel of "cat" (not pronounced as a syllabic nasal), as in "hundred, and two thousandths", then 100.002 is indicated. AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually pronounce "1.2" as "one and two tenths"? DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One point two. And, I commonly say "one hundred two." DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I myself, an ageing Brit, would do so in some contexts such as woodworking, particularly if talking to an even more aged Brit. Or I might say "one-and-a-fifth." In a scientific context and/or talking to someone markedly younger than me, I'd say "one point two" like DOR (HK), but I'd never say "one hundred two" in any circumstances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In English, it is proper to be precise, with words and with numbers. If your phrasing lacks clarity, you need to improve the precision of the words you choose. I would not read "1.2" as anything other than a decimal, nor meet "one hundred two thousandths" with anything else other than a request for clarification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of magnitude also helps infer what is meant. Specifying something as 100 miles and (plus) 2 thousandths of a mile away seems a bit silly. "one hundred and two thousandths" would mean just over 1/10th to me. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

British casualties on the Western Front of World War II

Are there any sources about the losses of Great Britain on the Western Front of World War II? It’s just that the number of 40 thousand given in the article looks underestimated Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]