Humanities desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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.

January 26[edit]

Limited-use currency[edit]

There was a summit of latin american presidents some days ago, and there was a proposal to make a common currency between Argentina and Brazil. People then compared it to the most familiar example of that, the Euro. So then they clarified that no, Argentina and Brazil would keep their currencies, the Peso and the Real. This new currency (let's name it "real peso" to ease the discussion) would be used only in international trade.

Meaning: Alice from Argentina wants to buy a foo from Bob, from Brazil. Alice uses her Pesos to buy Real Pesos and pay the foo with them. Bob gets those real pesos in Brazil and changes them for Reales. And that's all. You can't use the peso real at either country to pay for things in local stores, taxes or whatever.

So, the question: is there an example of such a currency somewhere else? A "special" currency that is no country's national currency? Cambalachero (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Foreign exchange certificate. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when the Soviet Union engaged in international trade, the instruments used basically had no relationship whatsoever to ordinary ruble bills and kopek coins used in daily life inside the Soviet Union. AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious example is a bullion coin which is a tradable repository of precious metals that has a legal face value as currency that is a tiny percentage of the value of the coin as melted down as bullion. The face value is artificial in most senses, except as a government endorsement of the weight and purity of the precious metal (usually gold). Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The International Monetary Fund uses "Special Drawing Rights" as an internal unit of account, though these are not a currency that is actually circulated anywhere. Related: Bancor. The international dollar is another special-case unit of account. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Large denominations of United States currency for US examples. Many of the large denomination currencies issued in the U.S. were not intended for public daily use. As noted in that article, the 1934 denominations from $100 up to $10,000 were only in use for intragovernmental transactions, such as between branches of the Federal Reserve system. By the mid 1940s, these had ceased to be useful and have mostly been taken out of circulation, except the few held by museums or collectors. --Jayron 32 13:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the new currency is to be called the Sur (we already have a very thin article), which would function as a reserve currency between the two countries, presumably displacing the US Dollar in that role. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spesmiloj? Steloj? There are also the regional currencies. --Error (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap iron call[edit]

Scrap iron call

What instrument is used in this audio file - is it a trumpet, a bugle, or something else? Or impossible to say?

From a musicological PoV, how should we describe the notes - are they "atonal", "discordant", or what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is neither a trumpet nor a bugle, but a bit of pipe being sounded, perhaps with a trumpet mouthpiece, or perhaps not even that. The notes are part of the harmonic series as you'd hear from a natural horn. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of an añafil

It sounds better than an añafil. See also natural trumpet. --Lambiam 09:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country abbreviations used as unofficial, but usual country codes[edit]

Although the Central African Republic has a consistent 3-letter country code CAF among institutions (exception: FIFA, here CTA), many sources use the abbreviation CAR as de facto country code. This appears similar to FRG formerly used for West Germany (BRD in German). What other examples for unofficial, but usual country codes like this are there? --KnightMove (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean code or abbreviation? There's a very important difference. A country code is created by a specific body for a specific purpose, as a means of standardization or something like that. For example, the ISO 3166-1 or the EU NUTS codes, or the Olympic codes. Various other organizations may adopt these codes for various reasons, or not. However, this is quite distinct from common use abbreviations for a country. If someone abbreviates the Central African Republic as "CAR", they could be doing so because using initials is a common means of creating abbreviations in English. They possibly aren't even trying to follow a "code" standard, they're just following good old natural English conventions. In the U.S. for example, ZIP codes have been standard state abbreviations for decades now, but many people still use other abbreviations for states in common writing and speech, "Mass." rather than "MA" for Massachusetts or "Penna." rather than "PA" for Pennsylvania. This seems like no different... --Jayron 32 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP codes are numeric, as the article says. Jayron means the state abbreviations introduced for use with ZIP codes. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. Sorry I misspoke there. --Jayron 32 12:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that difference, however, in practice, lines between codes and abbreviations are blurred. For example, a documentary in German language on the match Austria v West Germany (1978 FIFA World Cup) calls the participants "AUT vs. BRD". AUT is the official code for Austria (ISO, IOC and FIFA alike), while BRD was no official code in any body - but still commonly used in mixture with official country codes, as it was much more understandable and such much more common in German than "FRG". It is examples like these I am looking for. ..KnightMove (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and CAR is also used in the same way, although it seems, not that frequently. --KnightMove (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that in such situations what is happening is not "using an abbreviation as a de facto code" but is instead an orgaanization using its own list of abbreviations bt which has one or more abbrevitions that match the ISO code. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again about the losses in the Pacific War[edit]

In the discussion of the article, for some reason, the participants diligently ignore me, I provide links about all US losses in the war with Japan, while only US COMBAT losses are indicated there. All edits are corrected, you see, precisely because the Ministry of Defense is less authoritative than Clodfelter. Here are the links that the US losses are not delusional 90 thousand killed, but unfortunately 160 thousand killed and missing. Above figures based on Army Battle Casualties and Non-battle Deaths in World War II - http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html US Navy Personnel in World War II: Service and Casualty Statistics http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ww2_statistics.htm Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is considered primary, not the preferred WP:SECONDARY source. Both you and Micheal Clodfelter have looked at US government reports such as Army Battle Casualties etc., and you and Clodfelter have independently arrived at casualty figures for the Pacific War. Clodfelter has the great advantage of being published by McFarland and Company. That's why we go with his figures. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, based on a look at Talk:Pacific War and elsewhere on the Ref Desk, if you are able to pull together a variety of appropriate sources to support your position, you will have to lay out a clear through-line between them in a single place. For instance, clear sourcing explaining that personnel who are classified as "missing" are separate and additional from personnel who are classified as "killed" -- this is key to your contention and it's not at all clear to the casual observer that this should be the case; an individual can be known to have been killed and yet their body be missing. For example, at some point you have a link to an unreliable source that in turn links to the American Battle Monuments Commission that in turn describes MIA totals as including those buried at sea, which is clearly a not-insignificant number for the Pacific Theater of WW2. Pointing to numbers and doing math is not compelling data without the context that informs those numbers. — Lomn 16:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that the article about the Pacific War indicates all the losses of Japan is normal, but Klodfelter indicates only combat losses, that is, the data is a priori underestimated. At the same time, my source speaks of combat and non-combat losses, and it is not Private John from Ohio who speaks about this, but the Department of Defense. Well, okay, let the American eye continue to be pleased with the data on underestimated losses, since no one wants to point out combat and non-combat losses in the article so stubbornly. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, lay out your whole case, supported, referenced, and explained, in one place (per the talk page comment of 18 Dec, and others). Note, for instance, that your Navy link at the top of this question is a 404 page. Secondly, lay out this case on the talk page rather than continuing to revert the active article. Perhaps there is space to build a case for listing non-combat theater losses separately from combat losses. You may also gain support if you're able to build a case that cross-references other articles; if the overarching World War II casualties article uses sources that include all casualties of interest and provides an appropriate theater breakout, referencing those sources -- and noting that the goal is to increase consistency within Wikipedia -- will likely be better received than continuing in your present course. — Lomn 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that the sources are not authoritative, it's that no one knows what you are trying to do; you're going about it in a confusing manner that makes it hard to understand your issues with the article as it is currently laid out. Use the article talk page to propose the changes you wish to make, being very clear and deliberate about what text you wish to write, what you intend to replace, what sources justify the changes, etc. If you've been making your changes to the article in the way you've been asking questions here, it is entirely understandable why others cannot figure out what you are trying to do. --Jayron 32 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The DOD report (not MOD; correct terminology will help persuade other editors that you are in fact interpreting sources appropriately) you linked on US Army casualties notes on pp. 1-2 the issues with fully characterizing the true disposition of non-battle deaths; further, the definition of "non-battle deaths" provided on p.4 presents two different scopes of the term, depending on where in the document you are looking. That sort of acknowledged incomplete effort and potential for confusion may be the reason that it's not (or is no longer) being used as a significant source in the article. There's certainly plenty there to call into question whether or not the geographic assignments of non-battle deaths have significant merit. — Lomn 18:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want all US losses in the war with Japan to be indicated, since only combat losses are indicated in the article. I tried to chat in the discussion of the article, but there is an ignore. And so I would like to return the previous link about 160 thousand deaths of Americans, since it more objectively displays a picture of the bloodshed of the war in the Pacific Ocean Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a standalone article on Casualty figures, but even a cursory glance through World War II casualties demonstrates that it is difficult to define such figures in the first place, and therefore difficult to give precise ones. Do you include just regular-forces combatants killed directly by enemy action, or add deaths of local irregular combatants fighting alongside them, and deaths from diseases caught in the war theatre (sometimes the leading cause of death), and deaths caused by accidents such as military vehicle crashes in the combat zone (one of which nearly killed my father), and accidental deaths outside the theatre of combat during training or other military activites (which happen even in peacetime), etc., etc? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.82.82 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of the problem. Every source is going to use their own methodology to define a "casualty" or even a "death caused by war", and there is no definitive way to define these things. Getting information from different sources is going to lead to different results given that each source has their own definitions they are working under, and they don't always work well together. --Jayron 32 12:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it’s a pity you can’t return the last source about 160 thousand dead Americans, in my opinion it is much closer to the truth. And so you are right, World War II is the apogee of conflicting data on losses.In my opinion, all the same, the Pacific War was the bloodiest, both for the Americans and for their enemies, but oh well, this is my opinion, but I'm not a historian. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most bloody front for the United States and its enemies in World War II, I mean. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You kinda missed my point, like entirely. Multiple different numbers can both be true if they each measuring different things. Just "How many Americans died in the Pacific Theatre during World War II". Died how? How are you counting American deaths? Killed in direct action? Died from infection due to injuries? Died of diseases like Yellow Fever or Malaria? Died in prison camps? Soldiers only or civilians too? What about sailors that fell overboard because they got drunk and slipped on deck? What about soldiers that went AWOL and disappeared? When do we count them as dead? Depending on who any one source counts as "American deaths in the Pacific theatre" they're going to arrive at different numbers. Different true numbers I might even add. The fact that two sources give different values doesn't make one of them wrong. Different is not a synonym for wrong. --Jayron 32 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would take into account all the deaths, regardless of whether the American died from a Japanese bullet or from the fact that he fell drunk from the deck into an insole. It’s just that with the same Japanese losses indicated in the article, both combat and non-combat losses are clearly and clearly indicated, but with the American ones such a confusion. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YOU would. It doesn't mean that the person who published the figures did. --Jayron 32 13:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from 2 different coutries in the same war may use different criteria and classificatios. And a single country might use different standards in different wars. The sort of definitive numbers you are wanting probably aren't possible.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official numbers, in theaters vs Japan US losses were:

Army: Source:[[1]Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle deaths in World War II, 25 June 1953, pp. 76-77, 108-110, Retrieved 1/31/2023]

46,332 to 48,618 battle deaths (discrepancy arises from the same document)

24,940 non battle deaths

93,104 non-fatal wounded (5,948 out of 99,052 died of wounds)

17,040 captured and survived (11,530 out of 28,570 captured died)

2,506 missing and recovered/presumed alive (6,291 total missing, 3,785 died or presumed dead)

Subtotal: 183,922 to 186,208, including 71,272 to 73,558 dead

------------

Navy: Source:[2]US Navy Personnel in World War II Service and Casualty Statistics, Retrieved 1/31/23]

39,984 dead (31,157 battle deaths)

31,701 wounded

Unknown missing in action

3,848 prisoners of war (all theaters, not just Pacific)

Subtotal: more than 71,685

------------

Marines Source:[3]American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, p. 2, retrieved 1/31/23]

24,511 dead (including 19,733 battle dead)

67,207 to 68,207* wounded (slight disagreement on number of wounded)

1,752 surviving prisoners of war (originally 2,270, but 518 died or went missing)**

Unknown missing in action

Subtotal: more than 93,470 to 94,470

source for higher wounded figure: National WWII Museum: [4]Nat'l WWII Museum, Retrieved 1/31/23]
source for USMC POWs: [5]History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII Vol V - Victory and Occupation, Appendix A p. 731, Retrieved 1/31/23]

------------

Coast Guard (Source: National WWII Museum link above)

Unknown by theater, 1,917 dead in all theaters

------------

Provisional total: ~350,000, including ~138,000 dead

Once (if) all data can be squared away the final total will something like 355,000, including 140,000 dead.

In addition to this there was also the Merchant Marine, which while not technically part of the military lost 11,324 dead in all theaters during World War II. Most of these deaths probably occurred in theaters vs Germany, but it's a fair bet approximately 1,000 died in the war against Japan. The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the United States had 113 thousand non-combat deaths during World War II, it is strange that there are so few non-combat deaths in the Pacific theater of operations, it always seemed to me that the fauna of the Pacific theater had high non-combat losses. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the Army, out of 92,656 non-combat deaths, 39,898 occurred in the continental United States, 757 in Africa and the Middle East, 1,653 in the Caribbean and South Atlantic, 17,075 in the European Theater, 6,278 in the Mediterranean Theater, 17 among the Army Strategic Air Forces, 24,940 in Alaska, the Pacific, China, Burma, and India, 243 in Unknown Theaters, and 1,795 died "en-route" (between theaters, not assigned to any command).
Out of 52,758 non-combat deaths outside the continental US, 46.4% took place in theaters vs. Japan. Of the total deaths from disease outside the continental US (15,290), 11,427 (74.7%) died in theaters vs. Japan. Most of the rest of the non-combat deaths were labeled as "accidents."
For the Navy, out of 25,664 non-combat deaths among officers and enlisted men, 13,122 took place in the continental US. Of the remainder, 8,827 died in the Pacific and Asiatic theaters (70.4%).
For the Marine Corps, although there is no geographic breakdown, it is reasonable to assume that practically all their non-combat deaths (4,774 total) occurred in the Pacific theater and continental United States. The location of Marine noncombat dead is a problem I didn't consider in my earlier post: even though most probably died as a result of the war, it's likely that not all can be attributed to the war against Japan. The Pittsburgher (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]