Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • 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 are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

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.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

April 18[edit]

Early acceptance of Darwinian evolution[edit]

Recently, I encountered an unsourced claim (outside of Wikipedia) that only about 1/3 of scientists accepted Darwinian evolution circa 1900, despite the Origin of Species having been published 40 years earlier. I would like to find more information related to this. Does anyone know of historical studies regarding the acceptance of Darwin's theories over time, or especially around 1900? Wikipedia seems to cover the very early responses and some of the recent trends, but not much in between. Thank you for any assistance. Dragons flight (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled History of evolutionary thought which notes "Debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until it was revived by developments in biology that occurred during the 1920s through the 1940s." And then mentions several prominent alternative mechanisms for evolution. As usual, the creationism/ID people have oversimplified their terms and confused matters here, it seems. Evolution, as a broad idea (the notion that species change over time) was well accepted very quickly. How things actually evolved (the mechanisms thereof) took some time to nail down; and it took a century or so before Darwin's specific proposed mechanism was widely accepted. The unsourced claim is only sort-of right, and it is NOT like saying that 2/3 of scientists (which is ALWAYS a bullshit claim; I don't really care what atomic physicists believe about a biology issue, after all!) actually believed in Young Earth Creationism and that evolution didn't happen. Evolution was accepted even among those 2/3 of scientists (presuming it's broadly true), however they hadn't all come to an agreement on how evolution happened. --Jayron32 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Nathaniel Shaler was a respectable scientist around in 1900 whose acceptance of evolution was only slow and partial and grudging. However, he was hardly leading-edge, and there are reasons why today's creationists might not want to set him up as a role model... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Jayron linked (History of evolutionary thought) is a great one - a featured article - but perhaps a bit dense. If you want to get a bit more specific, the modern synthesis is what sealed the deal for Darwinian-style evolution. Prior to that, natural selection was something you could only infer and it was difficult to tell where it occurred versus where Lamarckism (the chief competitor) did. You could be a respected biologist and not believe in evolution - see Louis Agassiz. After the synthesis, this became virtually impossible. Matt Deres (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Louis Agassiz died in 1873, and was one of those classic old-fashioned senior-scientist holdouts to a new theory. I think it would have been different for an average working biologist/paleontologist in 1900 (as can be seen from Agassiz's close disciple, Nathaniel Shaler, who I mentioned above). AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Legal response to a chemical attack[edit]

In case chemical attacks would be conclusively attributed to, say, Asad or Putin (in Salisbury) through some kind of thorough UN-backed investigation, does the international law have non-military, but toothy response to such incidents, except standard sanctions, asset freezing, etc? Particularly, does the international law allow to arrest and oust for trial an incumbent head of state or other high-ranking officials after a conclusive OPCW and UN investigation? Thanks. (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is governed by the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, one of the Geneva Conventions. Information on enforcement is covered at Geneva Conventions#Enforcement. --Jayron32 14:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There really is no way "to arrest and oust for trial an incumbent head of state" and some "other high-ranking officials". See Immunity from prosecution (international law).John Z (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, unless you just do it. See Manuel Noriega. --Jayron32 20:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And if you never try, you'll never know. Peter Tatchell attempted, on more than one occasion and in more than one country, to perform a citizen's arrest when Robert Mugabe was outside Zimbabwe. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Violation of diplomatic immunity is a valid reason to start a war. So, an arrest is only in the cards when dealing with a country that is too weak to pose a military threat and doesn't have strong allies to do its bidding. That's not the case of Russia or Syria which is backed by Russia. US federal law says:"ASPA authorizes the U.S. president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court."" Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Territory the United States chose not to acquire[edit]

Some of the current land of the United States was acquired through purchase and peaceful annexation (Louisiana Purchase, purchase of Alaska, annexation of Texas, etc.) Are there any situations in the United States' history when there was a very real opportunity to acquire additional territory that was declined or fell through in some other way? (I'm interested in events that wouldn't have involved military action or conquest through force.) Käsewaffel (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In the Oregon Treaty, U.S. willingly renounced claims to British Columbia. Likewise, much of Northern Maine was relinquished to Britain peacefully with the Webster–Ashburton Treaty. There was no actual fighting in those cases, though there was some belicose "sabre rattling", (see Oregon boundary dispute and Aroostook War). --Jayron32 17:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
In the Treaty of Paris (1898), which ended the Spanish-American War, it was agreed that Cuba would become a free country, rather than a US territory, as did Spain's other imperial holdings. The Cubans formally received their independence four years later, and they didn't have to fight for it due to widespread public support in the US for the Cuban independence movement. This is... sort of? on the lines you were thinking of. It did involve military action, but the military action had already been completed - the US had physical possession of the island. The government simply chose not to keep it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
We already have a chronological article on the territorial changes of the United States: Territorial evolution of the United States. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I had seen that. That was actually the article that got me thinking about the territorial changes that didn't happen.  :) Käsewaffel (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
See Annexation of Hawaii. The Hawaiian government's initial request for annexation was rejected by the US Senate and thus didn't happen. Texas annexation is also relevant; soon after Texas won its independence, the vast majority of the population wanted to be annexed, as did President Lamar, but the US government refused for several years because of the certainty of war with Mexico. This would have involved military action of course, but I take it you're only excluding situations where the annexed territory doesn't want annexation, which obviously wasn't the case with Texas. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That reminds me, in a similar case to Cuba, the US chose not to annex all of Mexico after the Mexican-American War. Baja California was specifically decided against due to the perception that it was a worthless wasteland, and many in the senate were concerned that annexing too much of Mexico would upset the political balance in DC. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • During the Grant administration, serious thought was given to acquiring the Dominican Republic. There is a chapter on it in Chernow’s 2017 biography on Grant. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Panama Canal Zone was peaceably acquired and eventually returned. A number of the guano islands have been given up or ownership still not established. Rmhermen (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How is "social integration" operationalized as part of the ILO definition for "decent work"?[edit]

The ILO definition for decent work references social integration. How is social integration defined in this context? -- (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's defined in such a way as to make you do your own homework. --Viennese Waltz 07:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You can search the ILO site (I would suggest a query such as "decent work social integration"). If the ILO uses a specific definition of "social integration" then in all likelihood it will be found there. After all the only way to answer your question would be to refer you to an ILO document. Of course you can also start by looking at the WP articles (Decent work and Social integration) and see among other things if they reference ILO documents. Basemetal 08:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Missing pages in Keith's Sanskrit Drama[edit]

The copy of Keith's Sanskrit Drama was made from a physical copy (of the 1954 lithographic reprint of the 1924 original edition) that had two leaves (pages 16-17 and pages 204-205) missing. From the Google Books preview of the Motilal Banarsidass 1992 reprint I can see there are copies that do have pages 16-17. I can't check pages 204-205 there because they are not shown in the preview, but let's assume they're there too. Now the Motilal Banarsidass reprint doesn't say if it was made from the 1954 reprint or the 1924 original edition. Let's suppose it was made from the 1924 edition. If you happen to be within easy reach of a real paper copy of the book, in a university library for example, and it turns out it is the Oxford University Press 1954 reprint, could you check if those leaves are missing from that copy too? That way I'll know whether those leaves are missing from the 1954 reprint as a whole or only from the specific physical copy that was used for this particular scan that's at I can't imagine how and why two random leaves would go missing from one specific copy of a book, but you never know. I'm also interested to hear if you've got any experience trying to let know there's a problem with a book in their collection. They do describe some sort of process for reporting problems at their FAQ. But have you ever seen a problem fixed after you reported it? Thanks. Basemetal 10:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The Google preview has page 204 (beginning "IX VICAKHADATTA AND BHATTA NARAYANA" and ending "as compared with the last verse)" and also page 205 (beginning "The Mudraraksasa" and ending "regarded as very dubious." (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It looks like the Google preview depends on the customer. For me the preview says: "Pages 180 to 413 are not shown in this preview". Are you able to view the whole book without any gap? Maybe it depends on where you are. But why? This 1924 book should clearly not be under copyright anywhere and Motilal Banarsidass can't possibly hold any copyright to it. So why is the preview restricted for some people (and not for others)? It's a mystery to me. Time to get onto a VPN. If I used Tor, would that hide my real IP address from Google and replace it with an IP address from a location of my choosing? Basemetal 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the author died in 1944. It would be quite an undertaking for Google to change its preview parameters whenever copyright on its digitisations runs out. (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A further obstacle is that copyright expires on different dates depending on which country the person viewing the book lives in. (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
But you in England are able to view the whole book without any gap? Basemetal 18:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The archive has other versions without the gaps. Playing around with search terms often works. Titles and authors are often mangled and misplaced.John Z (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Extremely useful advice for now and in the future. I'd just followed the first link Google presented to me. Had no idea may have several copies. Thanks a lot. Basemetal 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How do the new names given to a newcomer to a religious order (Catholic and Buddhist) dealt with by modern governments?[edit]

In the past, a Catholic monastery or Buddhist temple was probably an isolated building somewhere. But nowadays, with modern governments controlling all the territories, doesn't that mean that modern governments actually have power over the monasteries? Would the national governments even care about the new names given in the monasteries, or do they just care about the members' full legal names? Or has this practice been discontinued in the modern era, and people just use their legal names instead, while socially, they may or may not use a different name? SSS (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In the U.S., there is no legal barrier to official name changes, it's purely regulatory. You just file some paperwork; it's no different to change your name for religious, personal, or other reason as it is for people to change their names when they marry (such as when a woman takes her husband's surname). The U.S. government just wants the form filled out and their fee. They don't care otherwise what you call yourself, or how you change your name. No approval is needed. As it says at Name change for the U.S. "Usually a person can adopt any name desired for any reason. As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change...Applicants may be required to give a reasonable explanation for wanting to change their names. A fee is generally payable, and the applicant may be required to post legal notices in newspapers to announce the name change." That's about it. --Jayron32 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean a name change. The person's birth name, familial name, full personal name, full legal name, and religious name may all be used, but just by different persons in different situations. This doesn't mean one replaces the other. I just want to know whether this religious name in the modern world conflicts with the full legal name, or whether it is just a side name that the government doesn't need to know. Do national governments even care about non-legal names? SSS (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
In the US, a person can conduct business under an alias, as long as it isn't used for the purpose of deception. Familiar examples are stage names and noms de plume. A perfect example is your userid, SuperSuperSmarty. Even though this most likely is not the name that appears on your birth certificate or driver's license, the copyright licence you granted by submitting your post is perfectly valid. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
So, the national government usually doesn't care about non-legal names. They don't have to be registered by the government as additional identification of the individual, but they do have to be honest and non-deceptive, at least in the community. SSS (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
That's about it; you can call yourself anything you want. If you want your friends and associates to call you whatever, you can do that. So long as you don't perpetrate a fraud with it, and continue to use your documented official name on official matters, no one cares. --Jayron32 20:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
So, why do people change their legal names (i.e. marriage and stuff)? In society, can't they just use their new married names, while as far as the government is concerned, they keep using their original legal names, even though no one calls them that in society at all. The legal names are entirely for legal and professional purposes (employers may require full legal names), but current personal names may be placed on business cards. SSS (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
So you're wanting to ban caffeine and also to control how people use their names? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. SSS (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
They change their legal names because they want to. I'm quite confused as to how that is hard to understand. If you want to know why they changed their name legally, you can ask them. I've never changed my name, so I can't answer to that. --Jayron32 10:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd say "administrative" rather than "regulatory", fwiw. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we have an article on the circumstance where people joining religious orders change their names? It seems a bit different than the more usual name-change situation. For example, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio started calling himself Pope Francis. IS he still Jorge Mario Bergoglio in any legal way? How about folks with lesser titles, such as those in a monastery? Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
My question wasn't directed at a name change, but a name addition. Obviously, family members would not address the person the same way as people in the monastery. Since old mom and pop were likely the ones who gave the full name to the person, they were likely the ones who held the person's birth certificate (since the birth certificate is a legal document, it will probably use the legal name, which is based on the full personal name) for a long time, and they might call their child by some variant of the personal name, which might be the same as the legal name, including the given name (name of the individual) and family name (or patronym). SSS (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
According to this [1] [2] [3], the pope had a new Argentinian passport and ID card issued and you can see photos showing they're still in his old name. The claim is made there he intended to use the passport to travel like an ordinary citizen, this interview [4] claims he still did in 2017. I have to say though, although the pope asked for no special treatment with these documents, I strongly suspect that photo would be rejected in the biometric era for an NZ passport due to the angle of the face etc. Interesting this source [5] says no hat without mentioning any allowance for religious headgear. Other non official sources claims similar [6] [7], but at least one source does claim a religious exemption [8]. But I'm not sure how reliable these are, or whether they mostly just use standard stuff and hope for the best. (And they may never be tested if few people seeking Argentinian passports use them, or they just use their own rules.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to correct a bit in the OP's question. The early monasteries used to be very well connected with the nobility and people generally. They ran the schools and it would be where one would go for somebody to help design and build a harbor or help with a problem farming for example. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
In death notices of nuns it's very common to see the deceased named as, eg."Sister Mary Aloysius Flanagan". In life, she would have been simply "Sister Mary Aloysius", and many/most of the lay people she came into contact with would have had no idea of the Flanagan part. It makes a return for the death notice. Whether that's just to distinguish her from other sisters named Mary Aloysius, or whether it actually remained her legal name all along, I don't know. I do know that when nuns take their final vows, they go through a ceremony where they become "Brides of Christ", and wear a white wedding dress for the occasion. Traditionally, new brides drop their maiden surname and take their husband's name (although I'm not suggesting all nuns become "Mrs Jesus Christ"). Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Source of quote[edit]

In My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers on April 19th he uses “retired sphere of the leasts”. I wonder what is the original source? Thanks so much Opfella (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[Fixed your formatting] Courtesy link to My Utmost for His Highest. From a cursory googling of the term, I see no evidence that Chambers took it from an earlier source, so (pending information to the contrary) we might assume that he coined it himself. In This piece he uses it and more-or-less explains what he means by it. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it known when did Chambers wrote that? (book was published posthumously) I find the same phrase used in an 1890 book by James John Garth Wilkinson: page 220 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Soul is Form and doth the Body make: The Heart and the Lungs, the Will and The Understanding by James John Garth Wilkinson, London, 1890. On page 220:
"The main business of physiology, and above all of psychology, is to see the organs in their places, to see them alive and at work, to demand their totality, and always as a functional part of the whole man,—body, soul, and spirit. His biggest organs are his atoms: in reason they are no fields for cutting up. Keeping this steadfastly in view, sufficient light may come out of it to the retired sphere of leasts; for in man the leasts are the greatest and the total over again".
No idea what it means, but it does seem to predate the writings of Oswald Chambers, who would have been 15 or 16 years-old in 1890. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

Julian’s Beard-Hater: was it a chicken or a goose?[edit]

In Julian’s Misopogon, he laments that when he went to a temple expecting a real good show of proper Roman religious practice, he found only a single priest with a single animal to sacrifice. Wikipedia and wiki source contradict: was it a chicken or was it a goose? 2601:1C1:8100:900:2C1D:E533:7C49:ECCE (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia say it was a chicken? The original Greek uses the word "χήνα", which as far as I can tell, has always meant "goose". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking at Misopogon, I don't see mention of any birds, but the corresponding Wikisource item[9] mentions a goose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Unless it was a churkendoose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There's an article which could do with some love, if anyone is bored. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've moved the following item by 2600:387 to here, and made a link. It was posted in the section for a different question, but appears to belong here. -- (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC) mentions the chicken instead of a goose. There may have been others I’m forgetting 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The face of Medieval Europe?[edit]

I was playing Medieval: Total War and it's got me wondering which culture, or Kingdom, best represented the Medieval Era of Europe? Asking this definitely sounds too broad of a question but if this helps to narrow down the criteria, which kingdom overall made the most significant impact on history, from the early to late ages?--Arima (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

When in the Middle Ages are you looking for? That's basically a 1000 year period of history which cannot really be captured by any one single state during the whole time period. If you can narrow down when you are looking for, we can possibly point to certain dominant societies, cultures, and states. --Jayron32 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Charlemagne, King of the Franks represented the Early Middle Ages. The Byzantines called the knights from European nations Frankish knights.
Sleigh (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed; the Frankish Empire was so pervasive at the time, that the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean called the Crusader States the Frankokratia (government of the Franks), even though many of them were not actually Franks. That only applies to the early-middle parts of the middle ages. By the late middle ages, the Franks ceased to be a real thing, and successor states (the Lowlands, Burgundy, France, Germany/Holy Roman Empire) were now in that place. --Jayron32 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I would also say that everything in the central and late Middle Ages is a reaction to Charlemagne's Frankish Empire, but that is a pretty extreme bias towards western Europe. But Charlemagne himself was trying to recreate the Roman Empire, which long predated him and long outlived him in the east in the Byzantine Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers, everyone. So the Franks were the most influential kingdom up until the High Middle Ages. So then which Kingdom, or Kingdoms, became the most influential during the Late Middle Ages?--Arima (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Possibly none. The Late Middle Ages (c. 1250-1500) partly coincide with the Italian Renaissance. Several of the key developments of the era either begin in the Italian city-states or involve their trade networks and colonies. The Republic of Florence probably had more impact on European cultures than most kingdoms of the era. Dimadick (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Echoing much of what's said above. And bear in mind that the 'glory' of Charlemagne's reign really didn't much outlive Charlemagne.

If you really pushed me, I'd say the Byzantine empire. For Christendom, Byzantium influenced a lot of thinking. The early part of the decline (Battle of Manzikert, etc) arguably precipitated the Crusades, an idea that dominated foreign policy in Europe for several hundred years. Its influence can be seen popping up all over the place, on things as seemingly random as Caernarfon castle. Its utter destruction, ironically by crusading armies, was a huge own goal that opened the east of Europe to threat of Muslim encroachment - a lot of people are surprised to find that the Ottomans got as far west as Vienna as late as 1683.

And of course the schism in Christianity between Rome and the eastern Christians preoccupied Popes and theologians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Jewish wedding[edit]

I have been reading a recent X-Men comic, and I got confused with something. Kitty Pryde is a jew, her father had died some time ago, and she's about to get married. So she said to her mother "Since dad can't walk me down the aisle, will you?". And her mother replies "That's a father's job. Or, at least, a man's". What? Aren't both parents supposed to escort the bride to the chuppah in a Jewish wedding? Or, in this case, shouldn't it be obvious that her mother would do it, without any issues about it? Am I missing something here? Cambalachero (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't judge the accuracy of these articles based on this Google search, but it appears that 3 websites all say that the bride's parents escort her. I think your own source may have confused Jewish practice and Christian practice. In Christian weddings, the father walks his daughter down the aisle. On the other hand, it is possible that the family is half-Jewish/half-Christian, but behaves like a Christian family with an ethnic Jewish identity. Or maybe, the author of the X-Men comic has not done his/her research on Jewish weddings. SSS (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Per SuperSuperSmarty, I don't think an X-Men Comic qualifies as a reliable source under most definitions of the term "reliable", especially with regards to Jewish wedding practices. --Jayron32 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, of course it does not. A work of fiction is only a reliable source about its own plot. The question was if this was indeed a mistake, or if it was following some jewish traditions that I was not aware of (seems to be the first case). In any case, I hope they use a badly researched jewish wedding and not a christian wedding, that would be an even worse mistake. Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Strict adherence to the thing about parents would mean that a daughter whose mother and/or father has died could never get married. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
As is common in ref desk discussions, there is an applicable Wikipedia article, Jewish wedding, which people do not mention for some reason. The fact is that the issue of who accompanies the bride down the aisle to the chuppah is a matter of tradition in various local Orthodox Jewish communities. It is not a matter of Jewish law, or Halachah. In some communities, it is four people: the mother of the bride and groom, and the father of the bride and groom who play that traditional role. In other communities, it may be only the bride's parents who do so. In other communities, it is "the father of the bride". If anyone in that role is deceased, incapacitated or unwilling, adjustments are made and the wedding proceeds. Here is an applicable link. The notion that the death of a parent could prevent a Jewish wedding is absurd and offensive, Baseball Bugs. Please refrain from your bizzare and uninformed speculations in the future. Use (or set up) a Facebook page (or other social media page) for your speculative flights of fancy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's what I get for taking the OP at his word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
WTF????? Why on earth are you blaming the OP for your own dumb comments? The OP never claimed that it was a Jewish custom. They were specifically asking if it was a custom that they weren't aware of. How can the OP be at fault when you made a dumb comment based on nothing that anyone has said? Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Take a chill pill, Nil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
[10]. I won't be addressing you directly further in this thread since it seems clear you have nothing useful to add. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
To be fair to Baseball Bugs, I think Cullen328 and Nil Einne have both misinterpreted his comments.
In saying "Strict adherence to the thing about parents would mean that a daughter whose mother and/or father has died could never get married.", BB was clearly (to me) making a reductio ad absurdum argument that the 'one or both parents' stipulation could not be an absolute requirement, quite the opposite of "speculating that the death of a parent could prevent a Jewish wedding . . . ."
In saying "That's what I get for taking the OP at his word.", BB clearly (to me) meant that by thus arguing against the OP's "Aren't both parents supposed to escort the bride . . . ." he had (wrongly in his and my view) incurred Cullen328's wrath, not that he was blaming the OP for anything as Nil Einne suggests.
I myself frequently disagree with BB's stances and conduct (much more often that I voice, because as an IP editor I try to keep out of in-house disputes), but in this instance I think he was being at worst a little flip (while discussing an X-Men comic, let us remember), and that Cullen328 and Nil Einne have misunderstood and overreacted. {The poster formerly known as} — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got it. And my main mistake was in not putting my comments in small print. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. I was never trying to claim that Cullen328's comment was fair. All I was trying to say is that if Cullen328's comments were fair, BB was quite wrong to blame the OP from them. (I did call them 'dumb comments', that was because I thought they were acknowledging they made no sense but were saying that it was because they took something the OP said on good faith but it turns out the OP was wrong. I'm confused from the followup what they're trying to say now.) I don't give a damn about the dispute between Cullen328 and BB. I do give a damn about BB blaming the OP for something which had nothing to do with them. BB explicitly said 'what I get for taking the OP at his word' which implies something the OP said somehow mislead them or was wrong. The OP did not give 'any word' to BB that BB took. The OP never claimed that their understanding was absolute nor did they say anything which really had much relevance to BB's comment. Let me repeat what I said in my first post, the OP simple asked a question, no where did they suggest that the practice or their understanding was correct. They seemed to be recognising that the existence of a normal practice doesn't preclude the possibility that there is some other practice in certain communities. (This was one way their understanding of normal practice could be correct, but so could the work of fiction in question.) Or alternatively although both parents walk with the bride, it was also the norm that the father's role was considered a key part and therefore the mother could not walk down without the father i.e. that their understanding of normal practice was correct but incomplete, although this also seemed somewhat unlikely given the wording in the comic. In doing so, they also implied that it seemed more likely that in event both parents couldn't do it, it would be acceptable for the mother alone to do it. They said since it's normal for both parents to do it, shouldn't the mother alone be able to do it when the father is unable to ('Or, in this case, shouldn't it be obvious that her mother would do it, without any issues about it'), so why was this not allowed in this fictional work? (Was the fictional work simply wrong, or was it following a tradition they were not aware of?) In other words, nowhere did they imply that the practice was so fixed that in the event it couldn't be followed, the wedding could be cancelled, quite the opposite. They explicitly acknowledged the possibility the wedding would go through somehow whether the mother doing it by herself or no one doing it, or not really raised but someone else. (The former being more likely, as the later seemed more likely to arise in different scenarios such some tradition where both parents didn't walk.) Just like if it's the norm for the father to do it, it would still go ahead whether with the mother, no one (as apparently in the comic), or someone else walking with the bride. Everyone else in this thread except BB already knew the wedding would go through somehow. The possibility the wedding just couldn't happen was never considered by anyone except BB, perhaps because to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of human culture, it's a weird suggestion. (This is not to deny the death of a father can't make marriages could difficult in some cultures, but that's normally more to do with the marriage traditions and norms than with the wedding ceremony.) If BB said something because they misunderstood what the OP said, or because they were trying to make a point from what the OP said (correctly understood or not), this is on BB, it is not because they were taking the OP at their word but the OP was wrong. If BB wants to stand by what they said because they feel they were making a relevant point, they should say that but it does not involve the OP having been wrong. If BB had wanted to say they made a mistake, they should have said that and not brought up the OP. The OP is not responsible. Let me repeat I don't give a damn about the dispute between Cullen328 and BB and I am not saying Cullen328's comments on BB were fair. All I am saying is that BB's comments and their relevance or unrelevance, offensive or unoffensiveness is on BB. And yes I do think this is a big deal since I hate it when people blame someone for something which had nothing to do with them and I still don't see any way to interpret BB's second reply other than as an implication the OP said something which BB took on good faith, but turns out the OP was wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Dispute over BB's comments aside, our article was linked by the OP themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Instead of taking a chill pill, Nil, you seem to have taken a caffeine pill. Or maybe several of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the article, and it says "In many Orthodox Jewish communities...". That suggests that it may not be an universal tradition among jews, but just a tradition of a specific group. Or not, that's something I guessed from the article's wording, which may be inaccurate or incomplete (the article is far from being a featured or good article). That's why I was asking. I did not expect my question to start all this trouble, so we may drop this issue here. Cambalachero (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hippocrates cum gentibus[edit]

I’m reading his on airs, waters, places on wiki source. He seems preoccupied with semen. (Its hard to tellll his meaning on matters sexual in Aphorisms; the translation seems labored and circumlocutory.) Did he have firsthand knowledge of the semen of various peoples? Did ancient medicine concern itself with semen as often as Hippocrates did?2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hippocrates, I don't know. But the Ancients in general, oh yes. "Concepts on the role of the semen in human reproduction date back into antiquity. Indeed, there is a range of information available about the semen reported by practitioners from ancient times." (On the Origins of the Semen Analysis: A Close Relationship with the History of the Reproductive Medicine. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017 Oct-Dec; 10(4): 242–255. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_97_17) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hippocrates on the pudendum[edit]

On Airs, Waters, Places: I wonder if someone may give an interpretation of this passage.

"Calculi do not form so readily in women, for in them the urine is easily expelled, neither do they rub the pudendum with their hands, nor handle the passage like males, for the urethra in women opens directly into the pudendum, which is not the case with men, neither in them is the urethra so wide,..."

Is this passage saying that women don't masturbate? Or simply that they don't need to use their hands while urinating? 2601:1C1:8100:900:C16E:C084:52E8:11D6 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

US attack on Syria[edit]

I ran across another claim that every one of the 105 U.S. missiles fired hit its target [11]. However, so far I have seen no images of damaged targets other than the one building at the Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology in Damascus. The Russians claim that Soviet missiles in Syrian hands shot down 2/3 of the missiles. Our article says two of the unexploded missiles are currently being transported to Moscow.

With so much lying going on, such a gulf between the propaganda of the two sides, is there any way to even begin approaching the truth in this matter? Can we find evidence of the two other supposed target sites being hit? Does it make sense you need 105 missiles to destroy even three sites? Wnt (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hence the term "gulf war". Since Russia won't let inspectors look at the sites where the alleged chemical attacks occurred, which side is your money on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, but who told you "Russia won't let inspectors look at the sites"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
When it comes to chemical weapons, I frankly would not believe anything that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians, and Hezbollah have said without external verification... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree, but my list also includes the USA, the UK, France, and my own country's government, plus many others. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
It does make sense, cruise missiles have small warheads (1000 pounds).
Sleigh (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
If you look at our article 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs, there are aerial photos of the 3 attack sites from the US government. If you follow the links to the source of these photos, you can see before and after aerial photos showing damage to these 3 sites [12]. There are also aerial photos of the 3 sites from DigitalGlobe here [13] and here [14]. As for more close up photos, I don't know if these exist. Sensitive government facilities are often difficult to photograph and this applies even more to a place like Syria. From what I can tell, disputes over what sites were targetted and the number of missiles shot down aside, even the Russians and Syrians seem to agree at least 2 targets (maybe more) were hit by some missiles. Or to put it a different way, what than concentrating on there being a gulf over claims, it's helpful to actually concentrate on what the claims are and where they are in dispute. For example is there a dispute over the number of missiles? Whether they hit or were destroyed? What they hit including how many targets there were? How much damage they caused? The significance of the targets? BTW, you might want to look at the allocation of missiles. This is mentioned in at least one of the earlier sources and also others coming from the US goverrnment [15]. 76 of them were use on the Damascus facility. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. So the government is making a strong case, and the media is simply not communicating it. I looked at half a dozen articles all of which showed the same single target site. Admittedly, the others don't look like much (I guess that's the point with a bunker) but at least I can see something was hit on purpose. These photos should be PD, so we should have them all in the article (I mean, before and after). Wnt (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Terminal Island - 2000 census data[edit]

The Terminal Island article says the island "had a population of 1,467 at the 2000 census", but doesn't cite a source. Can someone find the corresponding census record (I tried looking at the 90731 ZIP code entry, but that covers a larger area, and it doesn't seem that Terminal Island is a CDP). Also, it seems (per this story) that the US Census counts prisoners at their place of incarcertation - does the public information reported about this census differentiate between prisoners and other people - presumably that 1467 people includes about 900 prisoners. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Presumably the island is a separate piece of census geography known as a Census block group. Let's see if it's possible to find data at the block group level...the current Census Bureau Factfinder isn't as useful as the old one, and I'm not clear if it has any 2000 data. You're correct on prisoners being counted in the prison's locality; rural Forest County, Pennsylvania hovered between 6,000 and 4,000 residents in every census from 1930 to 2000, but the construction of State Correctional Institution – Forest caused the county population to grow by more than 50% in 2010, and Jenks Township, where the prison's located, saw its population almost triple. I don't know that prisoners are represented separately; the Census reports the total population and the total population living in households, and prisoners are in the not-living-in-households group, but other kinds of living situations (e.g. college students in dorms) also count as not-in-households, so you can't just assume that the population minus the population living in households equals the prison population. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
PS, Finlay, the links at the bottom of Census block group and Census tract may well answer your question, but for some reason my computer's having trouble loading them...can you try them yourself? I was hoping for a useful national map ("click here and the map will show you information about the census geography of your choice") but haven't found one yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Is 9800.31 what you're looking for [16] (from Californian government but going die in 8 days and I'm not sure if this means archived but still there or completely taken down) [17] [18] [19] (last one is from federal government but has no map) [20]/[21] (from census themselves but no map). I found this using the map here [22] linked from the above linked Census tract "If you know only the street address, you can look up tract code number here by street address". I tried the address of the prison, and later a fire station I found on Google Maps but neither seemed to find anything so I have up and just worked out where it was from Google Maps and found the same location in the government map. (I suspect you can probably get a census tract overlay on Google Maps, at least on Google Earth somehow. Likewise Bing etc.) BTW, I don't see how you can know the people in prison from any of this info I found, maybe you need to find other data. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah I found [23]. While it's not perfect, it does list the "Civilian noninstitutionalized population". I'm assuming there are no rest homes, mental hospitals or military barracks, and the population below 16 is very low [24] so you can estimate from these estimates that most of the population by far is probably in prison. This is from ACS2016, I'm still trying to figure out how to get any data from 2000. Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
And I worked out the problem with 2000. The area is in a different tract, from this [25] it seems to be tract 2961. This gives [26] 1434 so I don't know where the above number comes from. This BTW is the census map for 2010 [27]. I noticed from these the Fort MacArthur base is in the nearby area. According to our article, I think it's out of both census tracts but while looking in to it I realised there are Coast Guard facilities there, which is also mentioned in our article above, so I withdraw my comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
While there is of course data for the civilian population and armed forces which you could use to continue down the earlier track [28], I realised while searching for this I was being stupid and so found [29]/[30] which has info on the imprisoned population. To ensure proper comparison, this is the general data for the same datasets [31]/[32]. (As I understand [33], there should be no difference in the data between SF1 and SF2 for this level.) For 2000 I think it's this [34] and [35] is equivalent data for the whole population. BTW there doesn't seem to be a way to provide direct links to search queries. But from 2000 to 2009 data, limit place to 'Census Tract 2961, Los Angeles County, California'. And for 2010 until 2019 (or possibly further) data, limit place to 'Census Tract 9800.31, Los Angeles County, California' in this search [36]. You can then further limit by year etc. Alternatively open one of my data links and click on the back to advanced search link. This should limit you the the geographical location it was for. Also as a word of caution, when opening the data links, open a link and let it load before opening another. If you mass open them, you may get unexpected results since the way the page works, the info provided to get it to load the right data may disrupt each other. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I still don't know where the figure in our article came from. I don't know the definition of Terminal Island very well, so maybe someone included population from some other area. But 2971.20 has a very high population [37] and I think the ones above likewise (and it also seems a little weird to include them [38]). 5756 does have a fairly low population [39], but 46+1434 is 1480 not 1467. My assumption is there is no real way to geographically subdivide a census tract without those with access to the original data doing so (since that's the point) so you can't have part of a census tract in Terminal Island and part not if you are using the census data for your figures. I wonder if the most likely scenario is that someone took one of the ACS estimates instead or some weirdness with wherever the data came from. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Ooops again I didn't read properly before commenting. Reading census tract, the US also has Census block groups and then Census blocks. So it would nominally be possible to make up a Terminal Island figure using census block groups or census blocks that are part of different census tracts to get the 1467 figure. I don't know how this is done though. Also I just noticed that 5756 is part of a different CCD although I appreciate CCDs may not necessarily correlate with local norms. Is the definition of Terminal Island coming from somewhere like the government of California or of Los Angeles and then this definition then being used to get the data for census block groups or census blocks and come up with a figure? This seems a quite an involved process and would need a good source. I've asked the editor who added it for clarification (User talk:Backspace#Source for census claim in Terminal Island although they haven't edited since 2016 Special:Contributions/Backspace, but they seem to edit sporadically so maybe they will be back. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
For anyone interested, these are the 2000 Census block maps for the area. (Well really I probably included too much.) Either by whole of LA [40] [41][42][43][44] [45] [46] or by CCD [47][48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The prison seems to be in block 2006 in the 2000 census BTW [56]. For searching you may want All Blocks within Census Tract 2961, Los Angeles County, California etc. Block level data would seem to provide info that could be linked to individuals in a number of cases. I understand sample data (I presume from ACS or the old long form) which includes economic status, job etc is restricted to block groups for privacy reasons (and I presume further restricted in cases where the block groups are very small). I never realised the US provides the very basic data which gives info on race, age groups, relationship status, at a level which could potentially be tied to individuals. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, that's so much information. And indeed none really matches what's in the article. The "terminal island" block does seem to contain more than just the actual island - but it's still mostly industrial areas - except for a large marina. I wonder if some people habitually live in the marina, and so get counted there. I've spent some time poring over the area in Google's satellite view, and there's certainly no evidence now of any real residential accomodation - but admittedly that's 18 years after the 2000 census, so things may have changed. Right now the only non-prison accomodation that's evident is some housing for the Coast Guard station (south of the prison), which has 10 or so large-ish houses and a couple of buildings that may be barracks. It's certainly not just for actual CG personel, as there's a kiddie's playground with a seesaw, roundabout, and a jungle-gym (so there must be some CG family accomodation). But no sign of remotely enough for 500 or so non-prison people. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering where the non prison people were living as well. I don't think it's the Coast Guard facilities as no one shows up as being in the armed forces [57]. This was based on sampling [58], still I would assume it would still have picked it up if it was a fair few. In any case, I don't think it can be military quarters, these should show up as group homes together with prisons. (And this is based on the 100% data.) I realised the previous link was less clear on the other sorts of group quarters. This one shows the most detail [59], the only other group quarters is a small number on maritime vessels. The number outside prison did go down in 2010, but it was still 200+ suggesting 8 years ago there were still a fair few living in the area outside prison. In 2000 (also IIRC 2010) there were a bunch of couples and families with kids [60]. I guess it's possible it's civilian coast guard personnel living in more traditional homes and these aren't counted as military quarters, but there's also no one employed by the government in the sampling data [61]. Also at least some of the homes are 'owner-occupied', I would assume they even civilians never actually own homes in coast guard facilities. The earlier data on jobs and also this family income [62]. There is no family less than US$35k and although we are talking about LA here I suspect this still makes it seem unlikely that it's people illegally living in industrial facilities. There's also a bunch earning $100k-149k. Admittedly the numbers are small enough that I think we're only looking at 2 households, 2 households and 3 households, multiplied by 6. (I think this is excluding anyone in prison even if that prison evidently requires people to work.) It's possible some are living on ships in the marina (I'm assuming this is mostly what you were thinking of?) but there are also a bunch of vacant housing units, and also a bunch of households were rented. I wouldn't think a boat, even an empty boat, counts as a vacant housing unit and it seems a little weird to live on a rented boat. (Unless this is crew on a rich person's yatch. I'm not sure if that would count as maritime vessel group quarters or not. I'm not sure if any of the economic data suggest this either although I'm also not sure how well this would be sampled.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It occurred to me this is one area where the block level data is quite useful. From the earlier link [63] I found the populations block:

1000 - 173, the 2000 government map seems quite different from the 2018 Google Map. This seems to be the area which is now the south west end of New Dock Street. The group quarters data reveals that this is where all the maritime vessel people are 'located'. Still that's only 30. There are a total of 32 families here most of them married with no children. There is a ~2 to 1 male bias and for males the age tends to be quite old most at least 35 with the 45 to 69 age range the highest and even a few 70 to 84. (For females 35 to 59 and 65 to 66 with to above 85.) Sort of suggests to me people in their own boats. Most of the non family households are one person. There are some renter occupied, this may be those on maritime vessels and perhaps some yatchs or similar where the owner wasn't living there?

1009 - 11, not that far from 1000 again the map differences make it difficult to know what was here.

2000 - 4

2002 - 1

2006 - 1125 this is obviously the prison although interesting there are a number here who don't count as living in group quarters

2009 to 2020 - between 2 to 14 in each, this is the area where Wharf Street, Cannery Street, down to the end of Barracuda Street on the left side nowadays. Too many for easy analysis, I did notice families including some with kids. Some are owner-occupied some renter. I was wondering if these were boats but I don't get why they'd count in many of these areas.

2022 - 43 not really sure what this is, I was wondering if they are boats, there are families including some with children although most of them are renter occupied. I guess it could be any sort of boat where the living arrangements aren't counted as group quarters.

9001 - 5

9005 - 4

The data I used: families [64], age and sex [65], tenure status [66], household type [67], group quarters type (couldn't get as detailed) [68] or [69]

This map [70] seems to show all blocks although you'll have to work out where that fits in if you're using Google Maps or whatever.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. One thing which just occurred to me, is it possible some people who are 'renter-occupied' could be on a charted yachts and the like and they happened to be in harbour during the census? I assume renting/chartering a yacht long term while mostly staying at the harbour e.g. if you're working is relatively rare but this seems like it's something which may happen. What does the census count if you're living on a boat for say a year and moving around so don't have any fixed geographical dwelling for a long time? The maritime vessel group quarter (and also military) sort of makes me think they could count these people. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

Lebanese electorate by religion[edit]

I've been working with Lebanese general election, 2018. I've noted that several Lebanese news outlets have published fairly detailed accounts of the religious affiliations of the registered voters in each electoral district. They all seem to have used the same original source, since numbers match. But my problem is that they often summarize the smaller group in larger categories, like grouping several of the Christian communities together or not reporting Druze and Alawites in most districts, which makes it impossible to provide a national overview. Also I they don't report how religious affiliation differ within the electoral districts divided into 2-4 'minor districts'. I imagine that the original source of the statistic would be the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities. Anyone know if the original source material is available online somewhere? --Soman (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems the press is basing their numbers on , which does not provide a full account for all districts, but just reports the 4-8 main communities for each electoral district. Anyone knows if the full report is available somewhere? --Soman (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the way of calculation ISEP Index?[edit]

I found here that the tuition fees depends on something that's called ISEP index. What is the way of calculation this ISEP Index? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, "ISEP" apparently stands for "Index of Economic and Property Situation". I believe it may be translated from the Italian, which is why the abbreviation doesn't match the English text. This document gives details of how the index is calculated. The term is unique to the Humanitas University. Tevildo (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

International copyright issues[edit]

If a book is under copyright protection in the US, but not in Australia (for example), are the Australians legally allowed to offer this work through the Internet? That is, the Australians know the copyright status in their country and abroad, and, obviously, can only assume that US users would have access to it.

The above scenario is the situation of some works that are offered in Project Gutenberg Australia (for example, some Scott Fitzgerald works), which are not to be found in the US Project Gutenberg page.

Would this be any different from some site that uploads other types of work, like, say, a best-seller from 2017? --Doroletho (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

By that standard, sites outside the UK should not be allowed to host the text of the King James Bible, which is under perpetual "Crown Copyright" in the UK... AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't heard about this Crown Copyright until now. Apparently there's also an Open Government Licence, that is broadly and liberally granted, akin to the Creative Commons license. Doroletho (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know the general answer or if there is one. The Wikimedia foundation hosts Wikipedia and Wikicommons on server in the US, and they take the position that material on these server must adhere to US copyright law. We also try to make a reasonable accommodation for other countries' copyrights: see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. -Arch dude (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The implicit principle is that the site does not make copies in other countries. If someone in another country downloads a file, then the downloader is making the copy, and the downloader is responsible for adhering to the laws of that country. -Arch dude (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they be? U.S. laws don't apply to them. Now you certainly have identified the issue that effectively this makes it available to everyone with Internet access contrary to the wishes of the copyright holder, but, well, that's just one of the many things the Internet has "disrupted". Copyright laws were made for a world in which works existed as ink on paper or recordings on some physical medium like film. Society is just beginning to grapple with the implications of effortless duplication and worldwide transmission of information. (And if you think this is a big deal, wait until artificial intelligence starts replacing jobs by the millions.)
This would be different from "some site that uploads…a best-seller from 2017" because in any Berne Convention signatory (which includes most of the world), any eligible work is automatically copyrighted, and all signatories agree to recognize each others' copyrights, so doing so without permission would be copyright infringement in most countries, by the laws of that country. Of course then you still have to go after the infringer, which may be difficult and not accomplish much. It's not like it's hard to find illicit copies of lots of things online. -- (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a depressing lawsuit between the S. Fischer Verlag (part of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group) and Project Gutenberg (the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, PGLAF) about several books that are public domain in the US, but still under copyright in Germany. A German low-level court, in what I consider to be a very stupid decision, held Project Gutenberg to be responsible for (potential) downloads of these books from Germany, and ordered PGLAF to block access. It's unclear if Fischer can enforce this ruling in the US, but PGLAF has blocked access to all books for all IPs from Germany while preparing an appeal, on the theory that a German court would not look favourably on plaintiffs ignoring German court orders. Wikimedia requires content to be freely licensed in the US (where it operates) and in the country of origin, presumably to avoid such conflicts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons Commons:Commons:Licensing requirement AFAIK (e.g. Commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications) has much more to do with their purpose namely to serve as a repository of free content. They don't only serve the US with their purpose. We can't check legal issues in every single country (although we do try at a general level Template:PD-old-70) and while ultimately reusers need to verify that their use is compliant with local law themselves, it's considered more likely that content will be free if it's free in the source country. This is extended to the site the content came from if it's different from where the content was created.

In other words, the reason for the source country thing isn't because of concerns the foundation may be sued over German users accessing our content that comes from Germany. It's mostly because we want to reduce the chance an Indian or French reuser of our content may be sued for violating copyright law in India or French (not German) copyright law. The foundation seems to accept the risk of being sued for the general case. They may comply with specific request if they don't think the case is worth fighting but there's little proactive enforcement, after all en.wikipedia and some other projects may not have that, or even allow things like fair use.

I guess there may be some minor consideration that reusers could be sued for violating source country law in another country since reusers may have far smaller pockets and the copyright holders may be based in the source country so may be most likely interested in their law, but I don't think it's a significant consideration. An exception to this general sentiment is that the concept of any copyright over simple reproductions of public domain 2D art work is considered so 'wrong', that any possible copyright is rejected. Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll.

The US thing OTOH actually has little to do with the mission, it only arises because the wikimedia servers are in the US so need to comply with local law. A notable example of this is are doubts over some FOP cases where the law of the country the 'work' (sculpture or whatever) is in allows it but US law does not. See Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd entirely agree the 2007 thing is completely different. While there may me moral and PR reasons to treat cases like that mentioned by StS different from the high profile cases of generally commercial sites hosting or linking to recent works, the actual implications tend to be related. In other words, if you actually study cases like Sci-Hub, Library Genesis,, Megaupload legal case, The Pirate Bay or even the older Kazaa and Grokster, I think you'll find similar issues arise.

There were at least attempts to go after these because they violate US copyright law. They may have violated Russian, Netherlands or whatever law as well and there are sometimes additional attempts to go through local law or maybe these issues have to be considered e.g. due to extradition requests but the US cases are generally mostly concerned with US law which shouldn't be that surprising since US courts aren't generally the right place to decide if something violates Russian law.

These cases haven't always been especially successful but some of them have been. (And often the big barrier is not getting the US judgement, but enforcing it. See e.g. [71] "Sci-Hub infringes US copyright law simply by serving its content to US citizens, says Toby Butterfield, a lawyer with the firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York.") Also they seem to have at a minimum established that using one of the traditional generic TLDs is risky.

It's true that the commercial aspect opens up additional legal avenues and there are related things like claims of inducing people to violate copyright (including inducing or targeting US users) which may be unlikely to arise in a case where someone is just hosting a PD work in Australia on an Australian site as part their efforts to make Australian PD work available to Australians. But it remains true that cases are being pursued for US copyright violations, even if neither a company nor the people involve, nor the site is not based in the US.

There was also the infamous United States v. Elcom Ltd. case although that failed. More generally, many sites even those not based in the US operate (or claim to operate) some sort of DMCA system. While this may be partially because they considered it the best way to reduce the risk from local law, from what I've read I'm pretty sure many also do it due to concerns over the long arm of US law. Likewise once they raise enough interest, many operators of sites seen to be contributing to copyright violations tend to avoid visiting the US like the plague. Of course in a place like the US with multiple local jurisdictions these issues can also arise locally e.g. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha.

(Outside of copyright, such issues can also arise. Probably the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 is one of the most famous examples were a number of sites attempted to proactively block US customers after the law. Funnily enough copyright law also came up there in the proposal by some affected governments to ignore some US IP including copyright to the WTO to make up for their losses. Much less surprising but companies with significant multinational operations often comply with local law unless they decide not to for some reason. E.g. Microsoft, Google in areas like search engines & content sales.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The silliest ever was the "shift-key lawsuit" (which never actually went anywhere)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Listening to BBC radio broadcasts in Denmark during the Nazi occupation[edit]

I would like to please ask the users if during the Nazi occupation of Denmark it was permitted or forbidden for the Danes to listen to the BBC radio broadcasts? Can you please also add the sources for your answer. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It was strictly forbidden to all those under Nazi occupation, not just the Danes. "While listening to foreign radio stations was forbidden under threat of punishment in Germany and in German-occupied territories, a large number of people did take the risk of listening to the British broadcasts."[72] "It was forbidden to listen to BBC broadcasts".[73] "Thus, throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, listening to Allied radio stations, for example, was strictly prohibited".[74] Among other things, broadcasts were used to send coded messages to resistance groups. See for example Radio Londres#Coded messages. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Clarityfiend. I have found on the internet a paper by Crisdella Pastera Frederiksen entitled "With the German Army in our midst". In this paper he writes that although listening to the BBC was forbidden in countries under Nazi occupation, Denmark was an exception to this prohibition. He brings as the source of this information an article written by Martin Armbrust which appeared on 28 March 2012 entitled Tidsafgroensning 1940-1945 danmarkshistorien. I would be happy to please have your comments on this. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that Pastera's article states BBC was allowed, and it cited Armbrust's article as source. However, there's no specific source in this about the BBC being allowed. Maybe the source "Bennett, Jeremy: British Broadcasting and the Danish Resistance Movement 1940-1945 - A Study of the Wartime Broadcasts of the BBC Danish Service, Cambrigde University Press, 1966" has more about it.Doroletho (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
This: "The Nazis punished Norwegian defiance with harsh repres- sion. In Denmark, on the other hand, the Nazis tried to present a showcase of the benevolent treatment awaiting a cooperative people. The Danes were allowed to keep their radios. " from a review of the book above (Review by: Erik Barnouw Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Jun., 1968), pp. 289-291) might have the answer you want. But it's not specific about the BBC being allowed, but radio devices in general. I have no access to Bennett's book right not, but it must have more background information, and maybe cites original sources. Doroletho (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Doroletho Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm Danish and found two Danish books saying it was legal but one of them says there is a common myth that it was illegal. Translation of [75]: "never illegal during the occupation to hear the British radio BBC's Danish-language broadcasts". Translation of [76] "remained legal listening to the BBC until the end of the occupation". There was German radio jamming with limited effect. Denmark chose not to resist the German invasion and occupation (except a limited resistance movement) and was treated mildly compared to other occupied countries. See Denmark in World War II. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. Since I do not understand Danish, may I please ask you one further question. You write that one of the books states that there is a common myth that it was illegal. Which of the two books wrote this and could you please indicate it in the text in the same way as you did for the other two references. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Nazi administration of Denmark, which had unconditionally surrendered, was initially quite different from countries like Norway and the Netherlands whose the governments had decamped to London to continue the war. The Germans established Denmark as "a model protectorate" (see Denmark in World War II#Protectorate Government 1940–43). When in 1943 Danes began to realise that the Germans might lose the war, there was widespread civil disorder. The Germans demanded that repressive measures be taken but the Danish government refused. On 29 August 1943, the government was dissolved, Operation Safari disarmed what remained of the Danish armed forces and martial law was imposed.
Although I can't find a reference, it seems likely to me that listening to the BBC was banned with the imposition of martial law in August 1943. In Response to Aggression: Methods of Control and Prosocial Alternatives (pp. 499-500) by Arnold P. Goldstein, Edward G. Carr, William S. Davidson, describes the role of the BBC in inciting disorder during the August 1943 crisis. According to Origins of Modern Europe; Medieval National Consciousness (pp. 409-410) by Abida Shakoor, the Danish Freedom Council which coordinated the Danish resistance with the support of the Special Operations Executive, began to broadcast on the Danish section of the BBC on 31 October 1943. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The Danish Listening Post, a newsletter published in the US by Danes who were anti-occupation, describes in October 1943 "the paralyzing censorship of press and radio". Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Simonschaim: The myth claim is in the first part of the sentence in my first link [77]. Translation: "In spite of the common oral tradition's frequent claims of the opposite, it was never illegal during the occupation to hear the British radio BBC's Danish-language broadcasts". I don't know the full story but the Danish media was censored. Maybe the media wasn't allowed to speak about the BBC broadcasts, and many people at the time just assumed it was illegal to listen. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Primehunter Simonschaim (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Danish Reactions to German Occupation: History and Historiography (p. 96) by Carsten Holbraad: "Listening to the BBC was not expressly forbidden, though many Danes thought it was". Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alansplodge Simonschaim (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'll be dipped. You learn something new every day. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"The role was considered the most lucrative foreign service position at the time"[edit]

From Nathaniel Hawthorne on the office of US Consul in Liverpool. But what made it so lucrative? Muzzleflash (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on everything: see Consulate of the United States, Liverpool: 'According to Edwin Williams's New York Annual Register, published in 1835, United States Consuls were not paid, but were: "in effect, agents for commerce and seamen. They receive no yearly salaries... and their compensation is derived from the fees which they are allowed by law. [They] are principally occupied in verifying, in various forms, the legality of the trade of the United States with foreign nations, and in relieving and sending home American seamen, who by accident or misfortune are left destitute"'. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Liverpool was a huge port at the time, and the major UK port for trans-Atlantic traffic. Any post which gets any sort of commission from that traffic is better rewarded than a simple government salary. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • But that ignores the fact that Hawthorne petitioned Congress for a salary, because all his commissions were insufficient for the city's high cost of living. To quote him in the article, a consul cannot possibly live here with a family (unless he secludes himself from society and forgoes all the social advantages of a residence in England). A man might be comfortable with this in a New England village, but not, I assure you, as the representative of America in the greatest commercial city in England. How could he have described it as so lucrative in such a situation? Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Having lots of income (lucrative pay) does not make one rich if one expenses exceed that income... --Jayron32 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, it may have been "the most lucrative" while still insufficient for gracious living. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Olympians and the NYSE[edit]

I know Michael Phelps, Tara Lipinski, Sarah Hughes, Evan Lysacek, the Fierce Five, Conor Dwyer and Maya DiRado rang the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange. Are there any other Olympians who did the same thing, as well? Please let me know. Thank you.2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris Mazdzer. Shawn White. 2018 Men's Curling team. Michael Phelps, Nathalie Coughlin, Ryan Lochte.2008 Wrestlers. I'm tired of looking, you can find many more here. --Jayron32 12:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How'd they choose between naming the Olympics after Daegwallyeong Township, Pyeongchang County, Gangneung "city-county" or Gangwon Province?[edit]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's important to note here that how each country in the world handles its administrative divisions is often quite different than how others do, and especially when we're working across languages and cultures, what we call a "thing" in one language can be somewhat arbitrary for what we call it in another. As a civil division, the "county" may be the most important, culturally speaking, to the Koreans, so it seems natural to name their location by that name primarily, and not what we have translated as "city" or "town" or "municipality" or whatever. You find the same thing even in the anglosphere. Compare the political geography of New England to, say, other parts of the U.S. In New England, the unit known as the town is the primary civil division people identify with, however the equivalent, known as the township, in other parts of the U.S. may be a largely culturally meaningless unit, where people may more readily identify with a City or County. The answer, therefore, may very well be it was named for a "county" because, to the South Koreans, that unit of division has the most cultural significance. --Jayron32 15:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Is lust the best vice?[edit]

If you were going to assign a bodycount (or years of productive life lost) to each of the vices, would lust have the least? Islam has sin involving instruments of pleasure. If they are pleasant, why are they bad? (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I favour a Parkinson's Perfect as the best vice, myself, but Americans will probably go for an Emmert patternmaker's instead. You're welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
In American those are vises rather than vices. Just so you know. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be some sort of joke? -- (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
If "best" means "the one that can get you into the most trouble", then lust might be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC) -- Among the best and most realistic moralists, the point of listing vices is not that you should never feel any of those emotions, or flagellate yourself if you do ever briefly feel one of them, but that you should keep them under control, not letting them unduly dominate your life. A certain amount of properly-directed lust towards your wedded spouse may be fine, but if you let it get out of control, then you may become a sex-addict who is likely to have a rather drama-filled and ultimately possibly somewhat pathetic life... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The dose makes the poison applies to moral illness as well as physical ones. It should be noted that eating is not a deadly sin, but gluttony is. Appreciation is not a deadly sin, but envy is. Sexuality is not a deadly sin but lust is. Rest is not a deadly sin, but sloth is. One very ancient view of morality is known as the Golden mean theory of morality, the idea that for any moral value, the most moral position is the moderate one.--Jayron32 13:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

King Idris' sons[edit]

So what happened to King Idris I of Libya's two sons? His article & related articles don't explain their fates. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

He had four sons and one daughter, all of whom died young. He also adopted a daughter who survived and married. See his biography on the Royal Ark. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be added (via sources) into the aforementioned articles. It merely mentions their birth & then jumps to his nephew being his heir-presumptive. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
What's stopping you? --Jayron32 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't have the sources or know how. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Impact factors: anyone knowledgeable?[edit]

Hello. I haven't really looked into impact factors much. i have a list of 30 or 31 journals. I there a way to mass-request impact factors [a well-respected impact factor provider] via list? And... how do I know how relatively good or bad a score is? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about Impact factor? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi:, I'm not aware of a batch ISSN search function for Web of Science or SCOPUS, the two most widely used (proprietary, alas) databases for citation metrics. Advanced search tools may be accessible to academic librarians (always eager to help) or those with access to an institutional subscription through their academic or employer affiliations. And their APIs may offer programmatic support for batch ISSN search.
All that may be overkill for only 30 ISSNs.
On the free (not open) access end check out SCOPUS' free service at CiteScore Sources. Extensive online help is available, but it is quite simple to use online or off.
Online (may have inconvenient multi-webpage results):
You can first establish, as you ask, "how relatively good or bad a score is" by first clicking 'Browse sources' and then clicking the drop down selector 'All Subject Areas' to filter sources to the most relevant subject area that covers your set of ISSNs.
Offline (more fun to play with or automate; equally current as online):
Download Scopus Source List. Use Libre Office or Excel and play with auto-filters on top row. First by subject (scroll far right, columns AE-BI) to select one that covers your set of 30 and answer relative quality question; then by Print-ISSN (most commonly used in studies as it levels playing field; column C), to narrow in on your 30. Deselect ALL checkbox and select your 30, which should be sorted nicely. Or write a spreadsheet macro to give yourself a challenge! Export to text file and write a script to accept another file with any number of ISSNs as input and ranked scores as output! Have fun with it; I did. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Had a few more minutes at lunch to play. To compare apples to apples, assuming your journals are in the same field. Works best offline.
Searching for a far more specific subject to rank your journals is enabled online and offline. Online you can search for a specific code at complete list of Scopus Subject Areas and All Science Journal Classification Codes (ASJC; offline by first checking the spreadsheet tab "ASJC Classification Codes' and browsing to look for a narrow term that covers all. For example, code 3309 is "Library and Information Sciences". That is the code to select in column AD (All Science Classification Codes (ASJC)), not the "Supergroup" subject filters offered online and in spreadsheet columns AE-BI. I couldn't see how to do that online.
Also, once your specific subject code is selected, and you've established range of scores (2016 CiteScore; column N) as a relative quality proxy, it may be more convenient for checking your small set of journals to simply select by their titles, column B. Auto-filter as in above post: deselect ALL and check titles of interest. Both print-ISSN and e-ISSN are on same row for each journal title, so no worries.
Back to work! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Unprotected sex[edit]

Are there any sources that promote "unprotected sex"? If your goal is to avoid pregnancy and STIs, then you should definitely use a condom. But if your goal is to get a pregnancy (you or your partner), then using a condom will not be effective, because the condom is designed to decrease your chances of becoming a parent or getting infected. Are there any sources that put unprotected sex in a positive light, promote unprotected sex, and discourage protected sex? SSS (talk)

The condom article has many sources that are pro-unprotected sex. Of 19 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Nay, the condom is designed not just to decrease your chance of getting pregnant, but to eliminate it. But sometimes it happens despite the best prophylactic measures. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
If someone uses a condom and still hopes to impregnate, their educational system has failed them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Revolution of 1949[edit]

What aspects of Chinese society and government did the Mao's society and government maintain?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎HarryOtter (talkcontribs)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. If you are seeking answers to such a broad question for any reason, including homework OR personal interest, I would start at the Wikipedia articles titled Chinese Civil War and History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976) and follow links from there that lead to topics that address your question. Certain key articles that would be most productive for you to read would be Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries and the Korean War, which were the first major domestic and international moves made by the new Communist regime. Later events, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution would also lead you interesting places. --Jayron32 23:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What is a "det. officer?"[edit]

(This was misposted to the Science Desk, and has been answered there, but it might as well be put where it belongs. -- (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC))

Admiral Ronny Jackson served as a "det. officer in charge" per his article. What is a "det. officer?" "Detective officer?" "Detonation officer?" "Detention officer?" "Data entry terminal officer?" Edison (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a commonly used military term. My best guess is "detached", bt I'm sure someone will be able to confirm or correct that. Meters (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Or "detachment" Meters (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I think detachment is more likely then detached. This source seems to be using it for detachment including in relation to officers in charge [78] as do under stories. However other stories use it for detail [79]. I think only knowing whether he was in a detachment or detail will answer the question for sure. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I think there could be some mistake or loose wording or something I don't understand. As detail seems a lot less common than detachment and while I think I have some idea of what a detail is [80], I wasn't sure whether it's common for it to be used these ways. So I was trying to find if this usage of detail is normal in military parlance when I came across this [81] which seems to use both detachment and detail to refer to the same thing. BTW, is this really a question for the science desk? Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph with the expression in seems to have been copied verbatim from this biography. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I googled on the two phrases "Ronny Jackson" "officer in charge". There were a lot of hits repeating the abbreviated "det. officer in charge" and one hit where someone had apparently guessed that "det." meant Detroit! But, way down the list, there was also this one that said he was "officer in charge (OIC) of the detachment".
Since the site Andrew mentioned was under the .mil domain, I then googled on "det officer" site:mil to look for other US military pages that might use the expression. Some of the hits, like this one, were about a Richard Rusnok. I then googled on "Richard Rusnok" "officer in charge" and found several references such as this one identifying him as having been a "Detachment Officer-in-Charge". That has to be the answer. -- (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I aimed at the Humanities Desk and missed. "Detachment" seems the most likely so I will edit the Jackson article accordingly, though "detail" seems possible as well.Thanks. The abbreviation did not same much space and probably confused most every reader. Edison (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
My guess is that it is "detached" because he is not a part of any command. He had been detached to the White House to serve as a medical officer. Prior to that he could have been a part of some, for example, pacific command as a medical officer, etc. AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But this article about the USN uses "det." to mean "detachment":
  • 'A helicopter det. had been deployed for one week aboard a frigate engaged in counter-narcotics operations... At 1400 local time, the det. officer in charge (OIC) held an all air crew meeting... The det. OIC discussed this with the ship’s commanding officer".
Also this article from the US Marines:
  • 'In July 2008, he deployed to Al Asad Airbase, Iraq to serve as the Det Officer-In-Charge of the combined VMGR-352/252 six plane detachment...'
Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
In this Dictionary of military terms [82] I seared for "detach" and had 25 hits. You may look at them. Most of them are "detachment." AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
And perhaps more pertinently: "In 1995 Jackson got his Navy commission and graduated as a doctor of medicine from University of Texas Medical Branch. An emergency medicine specialist, he was detachment officer-in-charge and diving medical officer at Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 8 in Sigonella, Sicily" which is exactly the post our article is referring to. See Stars and Stripes, March 29, 2018. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice job. Meters (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)