Humanities desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 7[edit]

First to both poles[edit]

Who was the first person to reach both of the North and South Poles? I wonder if it was Roy Koerner, who reached them both in the 1960s, but he used to tell me it was somebody from the US Navy. 174.114.144.138 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first people to reach both poles were Roald Amundsen and Oscar Wisting. Wisting accompanied Amundsen on the latter's expedition to the South Pole in 1911, and the two men were both members of the 1926 expedition that overflew the North Pole in Umberto Nobile's airship Norge. CataracticPlanets (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first person to stand, as opposed to Amundsen and Wisting flying over, at both poles was Robert Swan in 1986 (south) and 1989 (north). While it's easy to see that Koerner reached the north (Roy (Fritz) Martindale Koerner Polar Scientist, explorer and member of the British Trans-Arctic Expedition has died at the age of 75) it isn't actually mentioned in his article. I can't see anything that says he reached the south. By the way Koerner would have probably been thinking about Richard E. Byrd who made a disputed claim of reaching the north by plane as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Robert Swan only says that he was the first person to walk to both poles. Are you sure he was the first to stand on both? (Maybe somebody earlier could have flown to the south pole station and also walked to the north pole?) Loraof (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. I suspect I misunderstood Koerner's work in Antarctica as having involved the South Pole. Hayttom (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The first people verified to have set foot at the North Pole were a research group of geologists and oceanographers from the Soviet Union in 1948. The scientists were flown in and out of the pole over a three-day period...." [1] I can't find anyone earlier than Swan to have stood at both poles. Can anybody else? Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Most's manual[edit]

Shortly after the Haymarket Affair moved toward the execution of his friend, Johann Most wrote up a revolutionary manual, which according to [2] it was published nationwide in 1884 to 1889 and sold for 10 cents a copy. The article gives the full citation as:

Revolutionäre Kriegswissenschaft: Eine Handbüchlein zur Anleitung Betreffend Gebrauches und Herstellung von Nitro-Glycerin, Dynamit, Schiessbaumwolle, Knallquecksilber, Bomben, Brandsätzen, Giften usw., usw. The Science of Revolutionary Warfare: A Little Handbook of Instruction in the Use and Preparation of Nitroglycerine, Dynamite, Gun-Cotton, Fulminating Mercury, Bombs, Fuses, Poisons, Etc., Etc.). New York: Internationaler Zeitung-Verein, 1885; Desert Publications, 1978 (reprint). ISBN 0879472111

However, this ISBN is apparently for a reprint in 1978 and/or 1990 which is being treated as copyrighted by various online sources. Obviously, we should have this work on Commons, so can anyone rustle up a scan of the original version, or something that qualifies as Commons-able? (note: I'm not sure if the original was in German or English or both; he was a German writing this in New York)

To try to head off off-topic conversation, I should note that (a) hopefully speech is still freer in the U.S. than it was in the year of Haymarket, and (b) I doubt you should worry anyway since almost everything in the book is about chemistry, hence probably banned to the general public. Except the gun-cotton, because "Second Amendment". Wnt (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "probably not", because it's quite rare. There are six editions in WorldCat, and just ten libraries hold any of them (e.g. the 1978 reprint, OCLC 884883999, is held by just one) — Institute for Defense Analyses, Library of Congress, LaRoche College, Pennsylvania State University, New York University, University of Michigan, University of Central Florida, Washington State University, University of Victoria, and the International Institute of Social History. FYI, the copyrighted claim is probably autogenerated, based on the publication date; post-1923 publications are sometimes PD-US, but you can't get in trouble for infringement if you treat all of them as if they're under copyright, so it's common for websites to operate as if all post-1923 publications are copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging my friend Carrite (Tim Davenport) who collects and is familiar with the revolutionary literature of that period in history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been scanned multiple times. In almost every case, the reprints of old books that claim to be locked up under copyright are original scans by Google that have been appropriated. I've made a formal appeal for the unlocking of a likely first scan. It usually takes a few weeks for Google to review the request. I'll put it up under Most and Haymarket Affair if they approve the request. If I didn't manage to identify the first scanned version, the process will have to be repeated. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wonders — marking a reproduction of this sort (assuming it's a slavish copy) as copyrighted is distinct from a fraudulent copyright claim. Google's statement is basically "We think it's copyrighted, so we won't share copies", which is a big difference from "We recently argued that this thing is in the public domain, but now we think we own it, so you can't make copies". Sharing copies of pre-1923 works doesn't prevent them from sharing copies of a post-1923 work for any reason they want (barring a contract or court order to share copies), although of course it would be nice if they would share it like they do pre-1923 publications. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, Nyttend, Cullen328 — Google has reviewed the file and found it to be copyright clear and have opened it up. I cleaned their pdf and uploaded to Archive.org: Revolutionäre Kriegswissenschaft. I will link this to the Most bio, feel free to put it elsewhere. I dunno that it directly applies to Haymarket Affair, your judgment on that. Google are very nice about opening up public domain files that they have wrongly locked up, all you need to do is ask. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they were nervous of it because it was in German (different copyright laws in Germany), but it was first published in NYC, so an obvious slam dunk on public domain. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, for your help with this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Thanks! But for the record -- could you mention by what means you make these appeals - what page, how much you have to say? This does indeed seem useful. I'm also not quite sure where you were able to download it from there; I did a search and found a few editions, all still locked. The one you have on archive.org is "cleaned", and that's probably a good thing ... but with that crazy font my gut feeling is to get as original a scan as possible in case forensics are needed to distinguish a k from a t, f, or s, or worse, to take a guess as to which capital letter is used. Incredibly, I see it comes with a usable textfile thanks to ABBYY Finereader 11.0 (Extended OCR) -- they are not kidding! The book itself looks rather crude to my eye; for example, he writes that the best poison is "cadaveric poison" (Leichengift), which strikes me as a rather haphazard approach, especially compared for example to the sutaris known to Indian outcastes of the era. Still, it should provide a valuable cultural perspective on the time, to the degree one can comprehend the language. Wnt (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt - Bookmark THIS in your Google bookmarks folder, assuming you have something like that... Under "You Can't See the Full Book..." there is a link for "Ask Us to Review It." I'm not sure if this is a permalink, but TRY USING THIS. Frame your question around American copyright law (or UK if you are versed in it) and be polite and patient. Be sure to send them a thank you note when they open something up, a little sugar helps... They are actual humans who do copyright reviews, it's not a machine-based thing at all. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "cleaned" I mean I took off their front page notices (in English and German) and removed four blank pages from the front, two from the back, to get file size down and so that the pdf pagination would get closer to the book pagination. Otherwise, everything is as scanned, complete with writing in the book, Google watermarks, and scanning artifacts. (One could spend an hour or two and make that clean enough to eat off with Photoshop, but I didn't.) Not sure how well the OCR reads old German script, but you might try taking a look at that on the Archive.org page for a more modern German font. Carrite (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flying around the world[edit]

Steve Fossett is generally considered to have been the first person to fly around the world without refueling and without stopping. How has this achievement been distinguished from polar flights? Norge (airship) flew over the North Pole in 1926, Admiral Byrd flew over the South Pole in 1929, and the location of the Amundsen-Scott Station means that they have to get flights routinely; it's quite plausible that an aircraft would have flown around the pole, which entails going through all longitudes and thus encircling the world. It's not merely "at the equator", because Fossett started and ended in Australia. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fossett does not hold that record; Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager do. Fossett was the first to accomplish that feat flying solo. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a minimum distance laid down by various standards bodies, for a circumnavigation to count. For sailing records, the World Sailing Speed Record Council mandates a minimum of 21,600 nmi, according to Around the world sailing record. The article Circumnavigation#Aviation gives details of the criteria laid down for powered and balloon flights. According to the FAI, powered flights must be at least 36,770 km, about the length of the Tropic of Cancer. Rojomoke (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "Definition" section in Circumnavigation, which excludes circling a pole. This definition is helpful, I think: "The trajectory of a true (global) circumnavigation forms a continuous loop on the surface of Earth separating two halves of comparable area." By definition, this would involve crossing the equator at least twice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21,600 nautical miles works out to pretty close to 25,000 statute miles. Logically, you could certainly circumnavigate the earth by flying across a pole, The catch is that you would have to fly across the other pole on the same trip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21,600 was surely chosen for being the number of minutes of arc in a circumference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. That's how the nautical mile is defined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be. These days it's 1,852 m. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to the metric fanatics to screw it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was the nautical mile ever exactly a minute? It'd be bigger when the ship was at the equator then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The minute of arc actually varies between 6,110 feet and 6,050 feet. When the nautical mile was first introduced it was based on an estimate of the circumference of the globe, and fixed at 6,080 feet. Given that the average length of a minute of arc is about 6,077 feet it really wan't far out. Wymspen (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

Can somebody please translate this from German to English. schnarrendes Honoratiorenschwäbisch Thanks. It is out of the Rudolf Formis article. scope_creep (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where? (Seems to be something about Swabian dignitaries.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, if you don't know German - and you've told us you don't - then you're not qualified to answer the question. Guesses are utterly inappropriate. The only remaining option is silence. You remember silence, don't you? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's what I look forward to from editors who criticize other editors but don't try to answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when trying to answer a question is exactly the wrong thing to do. The wrong thing to do. The wrong thing to do. Shall I say it again? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about you apologize first? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would give that insult the contempt it deserves, but I refuse to be an ultimoverbalist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I'll provide a snappy comeback, after I look that word up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking the OP where he's seeing that phrase. Do YOU see it in the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could just accept every once in a while that others might be able to see more than you do... The current translation "snarling dignitaries Swabian" in Rudolf Formis is not bad. The original is in the German article de:Rudolf Formis. Schwäbisch is the Swabian dialect. Honoratioren are men holding an important position in a village or town, e.g. the mayor, the priest or the teacher (the term is somewhat dated), and schnarrend describes the way these people (or Formis himself) speak; "snarling" sounds okay to me, but a native speaker of English might come up with a better word. Maybe this gives an impression... --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"snarling dignitaries Swabian" is exactly what Google Translate shows. Unless they're "guessing" too. The first word, by itself, comes back as "rasping", which sounds like what you're describing. At the very least, the OP needs to switch "dignitaries" and "Schwabian" around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Baseball Bugs, they don't. This is a kind of Swabian (dialect), not a collection of dignitaries. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the right way to write the phrase in English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfilter, how would you write it out then? scope_creep (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honoratiorenschwäbisch is a sociolect mixing standard German with Swabian manerisms ("accent"). Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would primarily be Swabian with affections of standard German (the Swabian motto is Mir kennet elles, bloß kei' Hochdeutsch - "We can do anything except speak proper German"). scope_creep: I think you would get better and quicker responses if you made it clear that you want idiomatic English translations for the terms you present here, not explanations of what they mean. It would further help if you explained your understanding of these terms right away. As it is, the perfect respondent to your questions would have to be native in both German and English. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German, and have no understanding what it means. I will the next time though. The reason I come to this board, because I get excellent translations, from folk who know what they are talking about. scope_creep (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I misunderstood the pattern of your questions. Sorry. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that Formis was killed 1935 by the SS. The political allegiance of Formis is a bit murky. He seems to have been an early supporter of the NSDAP but clearly changed his mind.

Those who called his diction "snarling dignitaries´ Swabian" were not neutral linguists but (I guess) NAZI apparatchiks in the nascent 3rd Reich.

As a native German speaker, I judge the specific Alemannic of Stuttgart (Formis was upper Middle Class and presumably spoke the associated sociolect) to be fairly soft and melodic. Neither "snarling" nor "rasping" seem appropriate to me. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the above squabling was fun to read, could we have directed the Original Poster to the language desk? Hayttom (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]