Humanities desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

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

February 9[edit]

History of women librarians[edit]

How long have women been allowed to be librarians in the united states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C2:180:7840:3D9B:AD6:73BD:4F64 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for your premise that they were ever not allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you could read Timeline of women in library science and List of female librarians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also A History of US Public Libraries - A Profession for Women: "Men from New England’s elite families were the predominant players in the early US library movement... Along with these men, a number of women from the elite classes volunteered at libraries, particularly for work with children. It was not until after 1900 that women would dominate the operational work of libraries". Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some census related statistics at Librarians in the United States from 1880-2009.

The Tender Technicians: The Feminization of Public Librarianship, 1876-1905. In the preview it says; "In 1852 the first woman clerk was hired at the Boston Public Library". One of the nice people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request may be able to get you the whole article, or your local library might have a JSTOR account.

And finally; Reclaiming the American Library Past: Writing the Women in by Suzanne Hildenbrand has a Google Books preview, and again, your local library may be able to help. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian occupation of Crimea depicted on Wikipedia maps[edit]

I was very surprised to see that our map for Udmurtia depicts Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. (The map used for the Russian Federation depicts Crimea as 'disputed' which, while disappointing Ukrainian loyalists, is probably the best method.)

Where does this map come from and what approach can I take to change it to reflect international recognition of the status of Ukraine? I have mentioned the issue on the Udmurtia talk page [which I don't know how to link to here] but I think the problem is (and the solution will be) more general. Hayttom (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map comes from Wikimedia Commons at commons:File:Map of Russia - Udmurtia.svg. This map has a tag stating: "The boundaries on this map show the de facto situation and do not imply any endorsement or acceptance".

I'm not sure what the Commons policy is on this, but if you wish to take this further, I suggest that you start Commons:Village pump where they will (hopefully) know what's what. Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alansplodge; I have started Commons:Village_pump#Map_of_Russia and I hope to influence a change. Hayttom (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or... Simply find a different map (one you think is better). Then go to the Udmurtia article's talk page and discuss swapping. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, I hadn't thought of that, thanks. GIS is my work so I could make one, but do you know about templates for the Wikipedia style maps? (If you don't, I'll dig around.)::Hayttom (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious question here is whether Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) has an established policy as to whether or not maps should show de facto boundaries. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a policy, but I would not know where to look. So that's a Reference ~~Deck~~ Desk question: If there is such a policy, where is it? --142.112.159.101 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that's the main thing to solve.Hayttom (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no problem putting multiple maps on Commons. Commons just hosts files without much editorial selection. For which one(s) to use in the article, I'd start on the article talk page. I wouldn't chase after Wikipedia-wide uniformity until reasonable consensus develops in particular articles. I.e. go from the specific to the general rather than the other way around. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US won't go to war over Crimea, so the sad truth is that Crimea is now part of Russian Federation. We cannot change that and sanctions won't change that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's so sad about it? Personally, I find it delightful. Ghirla^-трёп- 18:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is a Wikipedia policy, where is it? --142.112.159.101 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

142.112.159.101 -- The Commons policy is that if there's a genuine legitimate dispute, then Commons will host image files reflecting both views, and it's up to the various language Wikipedias to decide which images they want to use... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not part of Wikipedia (it is a resource that Wikipedia uses) and it has its own policies that are separate from Wikipedia's. Wikipedia policy about what map to use would probably be in some sub-fiefdom of WP:MOS, but that place is crazy and I would stay away from it as much as possible. Just do something reasonable and hope they don't notice. For something potentially controversial, ask on the article talk page first, either for what the best thing to do is, or else just proposing to do XYZ. Then if no one objects within a day or so, make the edit. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't, or at least WP:WPMAP doesn't, we've left it to individual article editors to decide what's best for that article. In practice it seems like we lean towards going with the de facto borders when there is a dispute. Kmusser (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd George on Mr Jones[edit]

Our article on Gareth Jones (the subject of the film Mr. Jones) has the comment from David Lloyd George that "That part of the world is a cauldron of conflicting intrigue and one or other interests concerned probably knew that Mr Gareth Jones knew too much of what was going on. He had a passion for finding out what was happening in foreign lands wherever there was trouble, and in pursuit of his investigations he shrank from no risk. I had always been afraid that he would take one risk too many. Nothing escaped his observation, and he allowed no obstacle to turn from his course when he thought that there was some fact, which he could obtain. He had the almost unfailing knack of getting at things that mattered". I would like to pin down the original source of LlG's words. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to a website dedicated to Gareth Jones, these words were reported by the London Evening Standard, quoting Lloyd George, 26th August 1935. --Lambiam 10:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've asked at WP:RX for the article - would be helpful to know if it was an article by Lloyd George, an interview with him, a letter from him, etc. DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US and UK titles of Ripley's books[edit]

Look at the list at Ripley's Believe It or Not Annual. The 15th and 16th books have different titles in the US and UK. (Before labelling anything in the article with a {{fact}} template, please do Google searches on both the US and UK titles of these books and you'll see that both titles are mentioned by the appropriate sources. The only difference in general is that US editions of these books are not given a year in their title but UK editions are.) Yet, I can't find any online pages talking about the REASON the US and UK titles are different. Georgia guy (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the publishing industry, the publisher chooses the title, not the author. In this case, there are two publishers and they both can choose different titles. Cf. Catch-22, the original published title (in a magazine) was Catch-18 and the book needed to be rewritten because the title was changed by the publisher.
Sleigh (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Guinness World Records used to be published in the UK as The Guinness Book of Records and in the USA as The Guinness Book of World Records. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]