Humanities desk
< March 12	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

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.

March 13

Carl Craig - conflicting birth information

Carl Craig (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the above article, I'm finding conflicting information about his date/year of birth. For example, this article in Clarion-Ledger (a reliable news source) lists Craig's DOB as July 7, 1878. However, this 1957 death notice, also in Clarion-Ledger, puts his age at 82 years old, which would imply that he was born in 1874 or 1875. Clearly one of them is incorrect, and I'm inclined to think it's the first one (as multiple news sources reported that he was 82 when he died). Has anyone run into a similar situation when writing a biography? Should I just discard the first source, and/or add some kind of {{circa}} for the year of birth with an explanatory note? DanCherek (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Findagrave might have an answer, but it doesn't.[1]

Looking at census records on Ancestry.com (pay site) I find:

1940, age 63 (wife Lucy, age 61)

1930, can't find

1920, age 43 (wife Lucy, age 42; daughter Beulah, age 20, plus other kids)

1910, age 33 (wife Lucy, age 32; daughter Beulah, age 10, plus other kids)

1900, age 23, born July 1876 (wife Lucie, age 22, born July 1887 [sic]; daughter Bulah [sic], age 10/12, born July 1899)

1890, census does not exist

1880, age 4, assuming it's the right one - census date June 11, 1880 - age "at last birthday prior to June 1, 1880", which would suggest an 1875 birthdate, but they might have fudged it.

In any case, the 1878 date does not square with any of the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the last census record is correct, the birth year is either 1875 or 1876. The others imply 1876 or 1877. Taken together, this leaves 1876 as the only possibility. The last one then implies the range from June 12, 1876, to December 31, 1876. The 1900 record narrows this down to July 1, 1876, to July 31, 1876. That would make him aged 81 at death. Since the birthday July 7 is likely to be correct, the census records suggest July 7, 1876. --Lambiam 07:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed information, especially since I didn't have access to the Ancestry.com records. Not sure if this is the best place to ask my next question — any advice for how to deal with this article-wise, in terms of accurately mentioning when he was born while avoiding the specter of WP:OR? DanCherek (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birthday and the birth year are coming from separate sources. So I would cite them separately. The birth year comes from multiple sources so it needs two or more cites - the logic is it must be Y because we know both (X or Y) AND (Y or Z) are true. So it should look like July 7 (cite), 1876 (cite)(cite). That way everything is directly cited and supported. As for OR - first this sort of arithmetic / logical stuff is not really considered OR. Second, more generally, OR has to do with what is in the article, not what is kept out of it. If an otherwise reliable source said he was born on Mars in 1492 BC, it is permissible "original research" to completely reject that (and perhaps even other things from that source) without comment.John Z (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birth year 1876 needs only the 1900 census record as a source. Perhaps Bugs can supply a precise reference to the pay site. Or you can search for free using FamilySearch.org, but you need to create an account first. --Lambiam 08:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb in regards to this is that the earlier a particular record/document (including a US Census entry) is to someone's birth, the more likely that the information on it in regards to one's age is actually going to be correct. Do we have an 1880 US Census entry for him? Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it earlier. And it's worth pointing out that census data is not gospel. I know of many cases in my own tree where the census taker had it wrong. That's why I listed all of them, to show consistency. As to a link to the pay site, I'm not sure what someone would want. You either belong to the site or you don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgencies question

Why was the U.S. more capable of defeating the al-Qaeda insurgency and ISIS insurgency in Iraq than it was at defeating either the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan or the Vietnamese Communist insurgency in South Vietnam (which, to be fair, got a lot of help from regular PAVN North Vietnamese troops, especially after the Viet Cong severely exhausted itself with its 1968 Tet Offensive)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any specific sources, but part of the answer might be terrain; in Vietnam it was possible to concentrate and manoeuvre under the jungle canopy and in Afghanistan there are vast areas of narrow mountain gorges with natural cave complexes. In Syria and Iraq, the open terrain meant that ISIS were holed-up in the towns that they had captured, which were easy targets for the precision airstrikes of the various countries. The Vietnamese were also being supplied directly by both China and the USSR, whereas ISIS had no national friends. Note that the "boots on the ground" against ISIS were provided by the Iraqis and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a real-life version of How Not to Be Seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Rainbow Herbicides. You don't need those in a desert. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology, terrain, and the support of the local population would pretty much sum it up. The first sets Vietnam off to one side (poor ability to find / destroy real targets from afar); the second helped shelter the Taliban better than ISIS, and the third was only thinly available to ISIS. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just how bad was the terrain in Vietnam? Futurist110 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean how much land was covered by jungles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By jungles and/or mountains, Yeah. Futurist110 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Geography of Vietnam answer the question? Bear in mind also that a significant amount of the military operations of both sides were conducted (to an extent unofficially and secretly) in the territories of the neighboring countries Cambodia and Laos. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.80.5 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"By some estimates, forest cover in Vietnam declined by 50 percent between 1945 and 1980". [2]

"Forest cover [in Vietnam] declined sharply during the latter half of the 20th century, from 43 percent in the early 1940s, to about 17 percent by the end of the 1970s" [3]

Aside from the (largely accurate) comments on terrain above, bear in mind that jungle-fighting techniques — strategy, tactics, logistics — were learned on the ground. Close combat support helicopters, for example; rapid medi-evac; forward fire positions resupplied by air; uniform design; and on, and on. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial purchases Wikipedia article: Should the French purchase of Corsica from Genoa be included?

In this specific Wikipedia article, should the 1768 purchase of Corsica by France from Genoa be included here? What do you personally think? Futurist110 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the List of territory purchased by a sovereign nation from another sovereign nation, the important word is "purchased"; so, no. See: Treaty of Versailles (1768) & French conquest of Corsica. One might argue that it was acquired as payment for a debt, but this argument would best be discussed on the article's talk page, I assume. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:81CE:279D:B82D:75D8 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there's a difference between "territory ceded to pay reparations or debts" from "territory granted in a freestanding transaction", the contents of the list don't seem to make that distinction. Note that the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States is listed, resulting from the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-American war. Several other entries seem to represent similar situations. The real question for me is whether that distinction matters, and whether WP:NLIST really supports the creation of this list. But as you say, the article talk page is probably where the discussion belongs. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have now asked this question on this article's talk page. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]