Humanities desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 30[edit]

End of war in the future[edit]

request for speculation

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Will warfare ever completely come to and End? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:2931:7BD1:EE28:2B6E (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will warfare ever completely come to and End? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all of this "user"'s questions are able to be considered violations of the ref desk guidelines. Here, we are asked to speculate. It seems rather clear from the user's edit history that we've got a sock-abusing troll. μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources which predict the eventual end of warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Is There an End to Warfare?". Clarity Magazine. 1 April 2015. --But "reliable source" not verified. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:2931:7BD1:EE28:2B6E (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one trivial answer is that there will be no more warfare between humans when there are no more humans. As for other species, the same applies, so that the end of all warfare must occur when all species cease to exist. This may take billions of years or more, though, depending on which model of the end of the universe you use. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Death of the Universe: The Ultimate Peacemaker. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did once see this question discussed in a Science magazine, from memory. It may have been Scientific American or New Scientist. They looked at trends in human warfare behaviour over history, including casualties, and the likely future. They certainly speculated on the possibility of a world with less war, but I don't recall them predicting an absolute end. This article (open using your browser's "incognito window" feature if it doesn't work - they have a limit on the number of free articles you can read) is written by someone who has studied warfare from an evolutionary perspective, and may give some insights on your question, though not an absolute answer. An absolute answer about the future may well be impossible. (I think this is WP:RS enough for the refdesk, read the author's biography). Eliyohub (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's the famous theory about countries with McDonalds. It's actually quite interesting. See The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#Golden_Arches_theory. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Macfarlane[edit]

Can someone help find the exact birthplace and birthdate of George W. Macfarlane?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York City Municipal Deaths index gives the following information:

Name: George Walter Hunter Macfarland [sic]

born: 17 March 1849

birthplace: Honolulu, Hawaii

death: 20 February 1921

death place: Manhattan, New York City

address: 60 [sic] West 150th Street

age: 71

married, white, male

occupation: sugar refining

burial date: 22 February 1921

burial place: Fresh Pond Crematory

father's name: Henry Richard Macfarland [sic]

father's birthplace: Scotland

mother's name: Elizabeth Eliott

mother's birthplace: {blank}

spouse's name: Julia Macfarland [sic]

To cite this record: "New York, New York City Municipal Deaths, 1795-1949," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2WBC-M4N : 20 March 2015), George Walter Hunter Macfarland, 20 Feb 1921; citing Death, Manhattan, New York, New York, United States, New York Municipal Archives, New York; FHL microfilm 2,027,218.

-Nunh-huh 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to humans of real bear traps[edit]

I wonder what kind of damage those bear traps that consist of two teethed jaws would cause on a human. I assume they are not as bloody as in the movies, but how could they make them safe for humans? Llaanngg (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't answer your question, but the relevant section is Trapping#Leg-hold_traps. Rojomoke (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That type of trap can probably never be made completely safe for humans. You could post signs, but people might not see them, be able to read the language, or might figure they are old and ignore them. You could design it to only trigger if a 500 lb weight is on them, but some bears would escape and it's possible a morbidly obese person might trigger it (although such a heavy person doesn't seem likely to be walking in the woods). A snare trap might be safer for humans, with a knife/saw right by it so anyone caught can cut themselves free (in case they can't just undo the knot with their hands). However, they don't seem to be used for bears, so maybe there's a reason why they don't scale up (I imagine you would need a thick steel cable, and maybe they could detect that). StuRat (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By way of contrast, see the damage done to trespassers and poachers by the Mantrap (snare), which was made illegal in England as early as 1827. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.. one of which features near the end of Kind Hearts and Coronets (where it's mentioned that they are illegal). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is on display at an English local museum. Apparently: 'Man traps were made illegal in 1826 but in 1830 a new law was passed enabling landowners to apply for a licence to use them. They were finally banned in 1861, although Gertrude Jekyll, writing in 1904, observed that "notices of such dangers were posted on the outsides of plantations to within a comparatively recent date"' ("plantations" here means stands of trees intended for raising and shooting game birds). The museum also comments that 'It is hard to imagine that the poacher would not lose his foot'. Ouch. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the risk of losing his foot. Many misdemeanours which we would now consider minor offences were capital crimes in the C18; the Black Act (1723) "introduced the death penalty for over 50 criminal offences, including being found in a forest while disguised". So a poacher caught by a man-trap could die of gangrene, waiting for the gamekeeper to release him; or die on the gallows, with or without his foot. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a name for a method which focuses on to learn from mistakes?[edit]

93.126.88.30 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and error. 92.8.220.149 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can be linked: Trial and error. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try all and error. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trail and error. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and error. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

You might also be interested in the method used with flashcards, including modern versions, on electronic devices. There, you remove the cards once you have learned those items, leaving the ones you got wrong, so you can focus on those. So, you are using your previous errors to customize your learning process. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific method also relies on negative results to point the way to new theories. For example, the geocentric model of the solar system could not explain apparent retrograde motion (adding epicycles improved it, but it still wasn't quite right), leading to the heliocentric model of the solar system. If our solar system only contained the Earth and Sun, we wouldn't detect any retrograde motion, and might still incorrectly believe the geocentric model. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm not sure that trial and error is the term that I'm looking for. I'm talking about to take a printed paper with some information written in it, and then while some of the information is incorrect, submitting it in front of the students and they have to say what's not true in this information, or what's the mistake in this information. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been better had you said that in your original question. So you're looking for a term that describes, for example, a teacher presenting a mathematical proof which contains one or more logic errors, and having the students try to figure out where the errors are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But obviously math is not necessary. It could be a informative text about biology facts or biochemistry etc. which contains also some errors and the students should identify them. (sometimes some teachers even say some false'facts' in order to see whom of their students is attentive and controls the materials of the subject... and then they can identify that it's not true and they will tell him 93.126.88.30 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that description, it sounds like you're talking about Fact checking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A common term for this sort of exercise is "error identification test" or "error recognition test", although we don't have anything on it in the Test (assessment) article. Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have lots of Wikipedia articles that could be used as exercises!

The technique is useful in teaching grammar and punctuation, and in mathematical pseudo-proofs, but I'm not sure that it would be as helpful for documents that present facts, since it risks confusing the students. Perhaps choosing the correct version from multiple choices would be safer. Dbfirs 12:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the funny "proofs", like this proof that all great Generals were aliens:

1) All great Generals rely on accurate intelligence on the enemy, since, to be fore-warned is to be fore-armed.

2) But humans don't have 4 arms, so all great Generals must be aliens. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

portantina granducale cosimo III - FIRENZE[edit]

Transferred to Miscellaneous desk.

Names of these Royals please?[edit]

Please could you tell me who these people are in this photo? It is taken at the christening of Prince Charles. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're his 'sponsors'. Standing, left to right: Lady Brabourne; Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (representing Prince George of Greece); King George VI; David Bowes-Lyon; The Earl of Athlone (representing King Haakon of Norway); Princess Margaret. Sitting, left to right:The Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven; Princess Elizabeth holding Prince Charles; Queen Mary[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now to find out who they all were and their relation to Prince Charles (if any)! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their relationships to Charles are:

~~Lady Brabourne - mother-in-law of Lord Mountbatten's daughter. Mountbatten was Prince Philip's uncle.~~

Lady Brabourne - first cousin once removed. (Daughter of Lord Mountbatten).

Prince Philip - father.

George VI - grandfather.

David Bowes-Lyon - great-uncle. (Brother of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother).

Earl of Athlone - great-great-uncle. (Brother of Queen Mary).

Princess Margaret - aunt.

Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven - great-grandmother. (Prince Philip's maternal grandmother).

Princess Elizabeth - mother.

Queen Mary - great-grandmother.

Tevildo (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tevildo - but I think you have the wrong Lady Brabourne. That one is the next generation - Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma, who was Mountbatten's daughter, and Lady Brabourne before her father's assassination, and is described as Charles's godmother in the article. Wymspen (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - my apologies. (Incidentally, "sponsor" rather than "godmother" would be the correct term to use here, and the link in the article is wrong anyway. Something to fix.) Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the correct Lady Brabourne to the list. Tevildo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tevildo and Wymspen. Most enlightening! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Movietone News item reporting on the christening here, which also identifies the sponsors. The baby (described as "Prince Charles of Edinburgh") even gets a smile out of the usually stern-faced Queen Mary. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]