Humanities desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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.

June 14

Difference between Paralympic Games and Special Olympics

Are they the same thing if not what is the difference 71.173.75.221 (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. See Paralympic Games and Special Olympics . ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunand at Marengo

Do we know anything about the chef Dunand, beyond his creation of Chicken Marengo after the battle? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for obvious reason you will have to use French source, and indeed a simple search "dunan marengo" (in French) DOES return some interesting stuff, but not that much. For instance [1] says he was from swizerland, and that his father was chief cook for Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé. To know more I guess you'll need to to dig into paper archives of French army. Gem fr (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, elaborating on those refs. Some time ago, a clever volunteer here suggested that you can reconstruct a book in snippet view by successively googling for different phrases from the snippet. I tried this and came up with two partial descriptions. Note there is an alternate spelling for the name.

Caterer & Hotelkeeper, 1983 During this period there were also two master chefs, father and son, named Dunand or Dunant, who originated in Switzerland. The elder Dunand joined the French Army and became chef to the Prince de Condé (greatgrandson of the Great ... But he became homesick, returned to Paris, and entered the service of Napoleon Bonaparte, with whom he remained until the ... disastrous retreat from Moscow in 1812. It is a pity that so talented a chef left no written records, but Carème gives recipes for a number of his dishes, including a white wine sauce with fish or chicken glaze. He is also credited with grenadine Laguipière, small, ...

The new Larousse gastronomique, 1977 DUNAND - There were two master chefs of this name, father and son, of Swiss origin, who were equally famous. The elder Dunand joined the French army and became chef to the prince de Conde. His son succeeded him and became controller of this great household. When the prince emigrated in 1793 the younger Dunand followed him, and, for 12 years, was in charge of his kitchens. Then, being a sick man and above all with a nostalgic longing to see Paris once more, he returned to France and, having ... Having reestablished himself, he entered the service of Napoleon I, as chef. He remained in the service of the Emporer until he left for Saint Helena but, to his great sorrow, was unable to go into exile with his master on account of his health, and he retired to Switzerland. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a plan for if interstates run out of prefixes?

What happens if a metro area adds a loop and all interstates under 100 in that metro area already have 4 loops in that state? Or 5 spurs and they add a spur? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the last sentence on Interstate Highway System#Auxiliary (three-digit) Interstates states, "Some auxiliary highways do not follow these guidelines". I would assume they would try to exhaust all number prefixes 1-9 first, and number the three-digit Interstates regardless of it is a spur route or a loop route. This is the case in the San Francisco Bay Area in California, where there is the two-digit Interstate 80 and at least seven three-digit Interstates. Although Interstate 680 and Interstate 880 have the even-number prefixes, indicating that the should be loops, they each are instead spur routes that run from I-80 south to San Jose, California. Then there could always be a numbering exception like Interstate 238, also in California. There is no such thing as a two-digit "Interstate 38". As Interstate 238#History details, the State of California rejected the recommendation of I-180 because there was already a California State Route 180, and wanted I-238 instead because it was a portion of California State Route 238 that was being upgraded to an Interstate. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive structure of Arabian Nights

What is the "deepest nested" story in One Thousand and One Nights? And relatedly, are there any articles or books that discuss the structure of the work from a perspective of recursion (along the lines of the concepts raised in Godel, Escher, Bach, which as far as I remember doesn't discuss Arabian Nights). 169.228.154.204 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This journal article says the most embedded story has eight levels, and discusses embedding in the work a bit more generally too. 70.67.193.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USA law question - image copyrights.

Can mugshots from a police department be copyrighted? Example: police department gives out mugshots via a FOIA request. The party receiving can be a individual, private person. But when a news company receives the mugshot, they put a copyright to it. What if I stole the mugshot off the news company's website (where they got it from the local police department), vs. if I FOIA'd the police department directly? If it matters, the state is for Illinois. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

we don't do legal advice. Ask the PR / community manager of your local police, they should know and answer you Gem fr (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking a copyright question. Wasn't asking whether I'd win or lose in a court. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Are you sure that this isn't just a general copyright notice relating to the website and its content? When a picture appears in a newspaper you may see a copyright notice running along one of the sides, since the copyright in a photograph usually vests in the person who took it. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:6D9E:CD5D:662E:5310 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I contacted the news company asking what year was the mugshot taken, and on the phone they were all why, and iterated I can't use that photo for my own thing such as websites. But the person who took the photo, would be the police heh. Sounds like they were just trying to act tough. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ask at WP:MCQ, that's where the copyright experts hang out to answer questions. If I recall correctly, works produced by the US federal government are not protected by copyright, but state and local governments may hold copyright for their productions. RudolfRed (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York State regent examination negative curve

I am preparing to take the June 2019 New York State Chemistry/Physical Setting Regents Examination. To my shock and disgust, I discovered that high scores are curved down. This is a link to the pdf scoring key. Note that for a mark of say 75/86, you are given an 86/100, despite the fact that it actually equals 87/100. For a mark of 81/85, you are given an 92/100, despite the fact that it equals 95/100. I have two questions. 1. Is this ethical? 2. Can anyone find official statements from the State government explaining the reason for the negative curve? I've seen unofficial explanations from private websites, but I'm looking for something from the education department, or perhaps legislation mandating this. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how is that a problem, as long it is done the same way for every one?

anecdotal: I personally attended a school where score were normalized. The purpose was to give every test the same weight. This was official. As statistics were part of the curriculum, we students all well understood the point. If "too much" people had high scores, this would result in them losing point (and vice-versa).

so it can be ethical, and even more ethical than original scores. If properly done, of course. In which case, some one can give you the handbook explaining the rationale

Gem fr (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being done the same way for everyone. This test only curves high scoring students down, but curves lower scoring students up. So the final score does not reflect the skill and knowledge of the student in that subject. Not only that, but a different curve is used every year, a different test structure is used every few years, and this only applies in New York State. So none of this is "done the same way for everyone."

I don't have a background in statistics, but if I understood your argument correctly, you believe that a negative curve can prevent "point inflation," that is too many people getting 100s undermining the validity of the test. If that is the case, than the test is too easy, and the point inflation is a legitimate issue that won't be solved by altering the numbers to pretend the problem doesn't exist. I work hard on these tests. I don't want to lose points as punishment for that. I'm not the only one complaining about this. Check out this article: New York Algebra Teacher Writes Parents About the “Serious Disservice” of CC Tests --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC) + tweak[reply]

it is done the same way for everyone, since the scoring key is the same for everyone. Your final mark only depends on your initials mark. And the order is respected. So, a priori, no problem.Gem fr (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, examination scores are usually standardised (see Normalization (statistics) as linked above) so that results can be easily combined without one examination having a bigger weighting than another. The method ensures that the mean and standard deviation are the same for each examination. I used to have spreadsheets set up to do this. From what you claim, it sounds as if the curve used might be some sort of tweak on the standard method, but it's difficult to tell without seeing the range of actual scores. Dbfirs 21:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You don't understand my point correctly. Which is no surprise since I didn't really explained. Then again, normalization (statistics) is the place to go to begin with : "in the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values [for instance: initial marks, from different tests depending on the year] measured on different scales to a notionally common scale [f.i.: final marks, not dependent on the test or year]". Why they do this the way they do, they certainly have a handbook or something they can show you, if you ask politely (now, understanding it may require you learning some stats...). And, BTW, the huffpost teacher piece sounds like ill-founded rant to me (spreading outrage is a business model, not that new, and quite working). Gem fr (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they give the same examination (common core math, physical setting science) three times a year and use a different curve each time. Two students can take the same structure of a test in the same year on the same subject and lose a different amount of points from the negative curve despite doing equally well. What can they possibly be normalizing the score to? --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Across whatever "examination administrations" are? http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/hsgen/2019/541s-6819.pdf "Because the scale scores corresponding to raw scores in the conversion chart change from one examination administration to another, it is crucial that, for each administration, only the conversion chart provided for that administration be used to determine the student’s final score." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All that paper says is that the assigned conversion chart must be used. "Examination administration" just refers to each time they administer the exam; there are three such administrations every year and they use a different chart for each of them. Consider the three most recent ones, (link below) which all have a different negative curve. January 2019, August 2018, June 2018. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "No teacher is to score any of the responses written by his or her own students." In Britain, that is allowed to happen, which sometimes causes problems. Also in Britain, days before the exam questions are posted and answers discussed on social media. Is this a problem in America? 2A00:23C5:C700:AB00:F07A:B41B:9330:29AA (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the State Education Department's Office of State Assessment for an official explanation. They were kind enough to get back promptly. This is what their email said:

As with all state testing programs, Regents Exams are constructed using a class of statistical models called item response theory (IRT). The final score on any Regents Examination is not a simple percentage or number of correct answers; nor is it the same as the raw score (i.e., the total number of credits a student earns on the test). With IRT, a scale score depends on the overall difficulty of the questions on the test and not just on the number of questions the student answers correctly. The raw score-to-scale score conversion chart provides the transformation from the number of credits earned (i.e., the raw score) in relation to the overall difficulty of questions on the exam to the final scale score.
Questions for the Regents Examination in Chemistry, and all other Regents Examinations, are selected based on content coverage and psychometric properties. Care is taken to include a variety of questions at different levels of difficulty so that the examination provides information on students’ performance at each of the five achievement levels. The standards for these achievement levels were established by a diverse and representative panel of New York State certified teachers through a standard setting process. The standard setting panel defines the knowledge and skills necessary for students who take a particular examination to achieve at each performance level.
Differences in scale scores represent differences in knowledge and skills in the content area, not manipulation by the Department. For example, if the knowledge and skills necessary to earn a raw score of 52 are only slightly more rigorous than those required to earn a raw score of 51, then the difference in the scale scores associated with each raw score will be small. However, a larger difference between the knowledge and skills at two raw score points (e.g., 1 and 50) will result in a large difference in the associated scale scores (for January 2018 Chemistry, a raw score of 1 is converted to a scale score of 3 and a raw score of 50 is converted to a scale score of 65).

--Puzzledvegetable (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voila Gem fr (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to completely understand what it's saying. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independence for Canada, New Zealand, etc.

So let's say I was utterly insane and was working on a "Territorial evolution of the United Kingdom/British Empire" article, in the style of Territorial evolution of Canada. And let's say I'd made my way back to the early 1980s, when the Canada Act 1982 passed. Is this when I should consider Canada fully 100% independent of the UK? Or would it be 1931, with the Statute of Westminster? Or should I consider 1867 the date? (My plan was to color dominions as full beige parts, as opposed to territories and colonies which are colored brown) Likewise, New Zealand: 1986? Or 1947? Or 1907? Obviously all of these stages will be mentioned, but I'm just wondering if Canada etc. should even be included in the map as late as that. --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colour it however you like; we're easy going up here in Canada. It's going to depend on what you mean by "100% independent". As I'm sure you're aware, the Queen of Canada maintains a residence or two in UK, for which we're very grateful. Are we not dependent on the UK for housing her? She is our head of state, and does work for us. Matt Deres (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm will give you the date of the formal independence, and transformation into a Personal union between United Kingdom and Canada, as claimed by the monarch herself (spoiler: 1867). Happily both articles agree on this one. Gem fr (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only mention of the date 1867 for Canada in Commonwealth realm is in a table saying that that is when Canada became a Dominion or a Commonwealth realm. The Personal union article does claim that date for Canada but it is uncited and I think it's dubious. The whole notion that there was anything but a single British monarchy is, from what I've read, a 20th-century concept.

It is true that 1867 is the date whose anniversary is celebrated in Canada, but nobody in 1867 believed Canada had just become independent. I once had occasion to come up with this list of events representing Canada's progression toward independence from Britain:

1841 — Distinct money introduced for the Province of Canada.
1867 — Canadian federal government established.
1922 — Canada asserts that it is no longer obligated to support British military actions (and Brtain does not deny it).
1931 — Ordinary legislation in Britain no longer applicable to Canada, as had been agreed to in principle several years before.
1933 — Appeals of Canadian court decisions to Britain no longer allowed in criminal cases.
1947 — Distinct Canadian citizenship established.
1949 — Appeals of Canadian court decisions to Britain no longer allowed in civil cases.
— Monarchy of Canada recognized as distinct (personal union).
1965 — Distinct Canadian flag established; the previous Canadian red ensign flag was unofficial and the British flag continued to be used in addition.
1982 — Power to amend Canada's constitution transferred to Canada.

My impression is that the correct date for the monarchy is 1952, but I can't confirm that either. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you bother? as you mentioned, Canada officially celebrates 1867. So 1867 it is. Gem fr (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Matt_Deres~~ Golbez -- In 1914, the UK government unilaterally declared Canada to be at war with Germany because the UK was at war with Germany, so it seems to me to be safe to say that Canada was not independent in 1914... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hum... Military history of Canada during World War I asserts that "the Governor General declared a war between Canada and Germany". The same article mention that Canada could, and did, involve itself only as much as it saw fit. Gem fr (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also says: "The British declaration of war automatically brought Canada into the war, because of Canada's legal status as a British dominion which left foreign policy decisions in the hands of the British parliament." There was some degree of resentment for that (and also left over from Lord Alverstone's vote in the 1903 Alaska boundary dispute tribunal). It didn't affect Canadian participation in WW1, but it led to efforts after the war to clarify Canada's status... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos I'm not sure why you called me out. My answer was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point was that we're not "100% independent" from the UK today, let alone back in WW1. Our head of state is currently living in the UK on a permanent basis, so how independent is independent? In practice, of course, it amounts to not very much - if the UK vanished tomorrow, Canada would be no more impacted than it would by any of its other trade partners and allies, but in theory, our entire system of government would need to be re-jigged. Plus, of course, there's the question of what independent even means in a world where economies are so deeply interwoven. Is the USA independent of China? Is Canada? We may soon find out! Matt Deres (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to "call out" anyone, just to indicate who I was replying to. But I guess I was confused -- I meant to reply to Golbez's suggestion of 1867... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Independence of New Zealand. From that article, there's no single date before which New Zealand was clearly a colony, and after which an independent nation. This is not a matter of concern for most people in New Zealand.-gadfium 01:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Golbez will need "fifty shades of independence" in order to complete his map. The thing that it took this American some years to fully comprehend is that in the British imperial system, speaking mainly of the settler colonies, there was never intended to be a single, bell-ringing, flag-waving, American-style moment of "independence": unlike the unhappy, distressing outcome of the American Revolution, what most Britons around the Empire wanted was a peaceful, happy evolution from colony to dominion, and later from dominion to full-fledged nation. This process has continued step by step for a century and a half, and now is effectively complete - for all practical purposes. It may appear peculiar to the American mind, which likes a clear, sharp delineation of "in" or "out," but that evolutionary course has seemed to make most of the former dominions happy up to now. The shared monarchy - essentially a sentimental fiction enshrined in law - seems terribly unwieldy, and who knows what will happen in the next reign, but the present Queen has certainly carried out a near-impossible job splendidly and superbly.

On the question of when the distinct Canadian monarchy orginated, the Canadian Encyclopedia (funded by the Government of Canada) has this to say in the article "1939 Royal Tour":

In 1931, the Statute of Westminster granted Canada control over its own foreign policy. The Statute changed the relationship between Canada and the monarchy, creating a distinct Canadian Crown. Canada became the political equal of the United Kingdom, sharing a common monarch. The Governor General’s position transformed from representative of the British government to representative of the shared monarch alone. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth therefore toured in 1939 as King and Queen of Canada.

That sounds pretty official to me.Textorus (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, The Canadian Encyclopedia is a good source, and I daresay it has received some money from the taxpayers, but it is not an official government publication. See the article; it was created by a privately formed charitable group. Second, all that the Statute of Westminster itself actually says about the monarchy is:

the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

(That's in the preamble, on page 2 of the PDF.) If you want to read it as creating a personal union, fine, but to me it says just the opposite: that there is a single Crown reigning indivisibly over the entire Commonwealth. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment and quote from the CE refers to your list above, where you said you were unsure when the Canadian monarchy became "distinct (personal union)" - obviously, that would be from 1931 and the Statute of Westminster. But "official" or not, the CE clearly and succinctly expresses in a nutshell what is a somewhat nebulous concept for many Americans. None of this is a matter of your opinion or mine - the same explanation can be found in official documents from Canada and the other Commonwealth realms if anyone wants to go looking for them. Textorus (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

76.69 says My impression is that the correct date for the monarchy is 1952. Is that simply because that is the year the present Queen acceded, or is there another reason? 2A00:23C5:C700:AB00:F07A:B41B:9330:29AA (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because that's the earliest year when I've heard of references being made to the monarchies of different Commonwealth realms as distinct. Also, it makes sense that it would be about then, because the transition of India and Ireland to republics in 1949 would have forced a rethink of the concept of one indivisible monarchy for the whole Commonwealth; that's also when the title Head of the Commonwealth was created distinct from all the monarchies. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the Lawrence Phillips who gave Alcock & Brown £1000?

Our article Transatlantic flight of Alcock and Brown mentions a Lawrence R. Phillips, who gave Alcock & Brown £1000 for being the first British subjects to fly the Atlantic. Who was he? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The item is unsourced unfortunately. There is this ref in the previous sentence. If someone has a NYT subscription maybe they can see the full article in TimesMachine. MarnetteD|Talk 08:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was Laurence Philipps, 1st Baron Milford, I have added a link and reference to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, interesting family he's from. The father could probably sustain an article too. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National bird of Liberia

What is the national bird of Liberia? Having worked in Liberian issues for a while, I know it's the pepperbird, and it's not too hard to find solid reliable sources saying that the pepperbird is Pycnonotus barbatus. But I can't find anything saying that the pepperbird is the country's national bird, except (1) unreliable sources, e.g. [2] or [3] or [4], or (2) sources decades old, all of them preceding the 1980 coup, and nothing preceding that event should be used as a source for the current situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of national birds has a source, reliability unknown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it does; it's nowhere near reliable. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there are no ghits on Liberian government websites for the pepperbird or any other national bird of Liberia (search string: +"national bird" site:*gov.lr). We may be trying to prove something that doesn't exist? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia Export-Import Trade and Business Directory, Volume 1 (p. 250): "Bulbul: National bird or Pepper-bird". The same text appears in Liberia, Foreign Policy and Government Guide, International Business Publications, USA, 2006 (p. 129).

Cracking the Code: The Confused Traveler's Guide to Liberian English, John Mark Sheppard (p. 64): "Peppa boid... This thrush-like, drab colored bird is the national bird of Liberia.".

To Turn the Whole World Over: Black Women and Internationalism edited by Keisha Blain, Tiffany Gill (p. 258): "... the artists created works based on the theme of early childhood education and Liberia's national bird, the pepper bird".

Journey to the Promised Land, Dwayne Makala (pp. 61-62): "For across this great body of water was their redemptive homeland, which would become known as the Land of the Pepper Bird. The pepper bird (Pycnonotus barbatus) is the bulbul species which became Liberia's national bird, whose habitat was located almost exclusively throughout the entire country".

Picking up on that last quote, there is The Land of the Pepper Bird: Liberia Sidney De La Rue, Putnam, 1930 which is widely cited.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there we go: To Turn the Whole World Over: Black Women and Internationalism is what I needed. I'd found Sheppard already, but eBookit is not a reliable publisher, and The Land of the Pepper Bird is one of the "sources decades old" that I discounted because the 1980 revolution trashed a ton of core elements of national society, including holidays, and such a document can't be trusted for events in 2019. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]