Humanities desk
< December 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	January 1 >

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.

December 31

World War I

Hello nice people. I do know that some things must be discussed in talk pages, but I really didn't know whether to start it on Florence Green's or Jiroemon Kimura's. I don't intend to right great wrongs as Wikipedia is clearly not intended to do that. But I checked both articles and I reached the conclusion that his service in World War I would make Kimura the last veteran of World War I worldwide. Green died in 2012, Kimura in 2013. Could that be a great wrong reported in media? Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Green's article says at the time of her death she was thought to have been the last surviving veteran. None of the other veterans who were dead at the time have subsequently resurrected, probably, so that must mean the information was later discovered to be wrong (although no explanation is given). Our list of last surviving veterans doesn't even mention her: it puts Jiroemon Kimura at the top. Meanwhile, his article expresses some doubt. The uncertainty in both veterans' articles seems reasonable to me, since Wikipedia just reports what sources say and sources may not agree. Not seeing the problem with this. Could you repeat the question? Yes, media could be wrong. I don't think I need to cite anything for that. Card Zero (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed at List of last surviving World War I veterans. A key problem with both claims here is that neither fought in the war. They were both part of the military during the war but neither had a combat role. Depending on how a source interprets the term "veteran," either or both claims may be dismissed. Another factor is that the claim for Kimura is listed as only "likely," which suggests there is an element of doubt on the claim. In either case, the list addresses the issue, so there is no "great wrong" that needs to be corrected. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the British War Medal required service in an operational area, or overseas service. Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why peacocks?

In this ca 1660 artistic depiction of Zipporah at the inn by Jan Baptist Weenix, there is a couple of peafowl in the right corner. Besides "It works, mate!", any reasonable ideas why the artist thought this was a good idea? Perhaps they escaped from the larder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea the symbolism, but Weenix [seems to have a specialism in painting peacocks and other game https://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=64944&viewType=detailView] --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the choice was between peacocks and a dead hare, I'd take the peacocks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to make a list of 'weirdest stories in the Torah', it'd easily be in my top 1, so perhaps it's appropriate for the image to be pretty wacky. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be left out of various film and tv Exodus-based drama, probably because weirdness. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artists from societies across the globe, undoubtedly attracted to the male peafowl’s colorful plumage and unique characteristics, used images of the bird to form visual semantics intended to aid in the understanding of a work of art. This was particularly the case in Europe, where depictions of peacocks appeared in Christian art from the onset of the continent’s dominant religion. Beginning in Early Christianity, peacocks symbolized the opportunity for an eternal life in heaven enabled by Christ’s sacrificial death. [1]
This brilliantly hued bird became the symbol of immortality in Christian art, stemming from the ancient belief that its flesh never decayed. It can be found perched in the majority of Renaissance nativity scenes as a reminder of the resurrection of Christ, and therefore eternal life. The peacock’s tendency to strut while displaying its flamboyant tail also led to associations with pride and vanity—although these are significantly less prevalent in European art of this time. [2]

Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks! They do have lovely plumage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the real reason is that he wanted to show a phoenix, to rhyme with Weenix, but couldn't find a live example, so he settled for the next best thing. Simples. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge how would that play into a story about Moses? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 19:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, that Moses earned redemption (and thus a place in the hereafter) by his wife's swift fulfilment of God's law. It's equally plausible that Weenix just liked to paint peacocks, see Peacock and peahen - Jan Weenix, Jan Weenix - The White Peacock and Jan Weenix - Dead Peacock and Game. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that Christian theologians would have argued that Moses is not in heaven at this point, but stranger things have happened. I'm assuming the peafowl are contextually Christian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]