Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


January 12[edit]

murder rate[edit]

I was reading List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade and one statistic jumped out at me: the US murder rate quadrupled in just three years from 1904 to 1907. What could be some possible explanations for this jump? Mũeller (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Googling "murder rate increase between 1904 and 1907" yields a number of entries, including this one,[1] which suggests that changes in the collection of the data led to an apparent jump in the crime stats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help locating a famous painting[edit]

There was a print of a famous painting that hung over my wife's childhood bed that got lost in a move. She talks about it sometimes and I want to get a print for Valentine's Day but she can't remember what it was called. The painting was of a girl in a green dress on a park bench with some books in a leather strap. She thinks it was from the Louvre. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks, --B (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia has categories filled with paintings of women sitting on outdoor benches and paintings of females sitting on outdoor benches, some of them wearing green, or it might be Jeune fille dans un parc by Berthe Morisot (no books though). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Searching Google images for "painting park bench girl" turns up some possibilities. Bus stop (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help with a character[edit]

Donald Trump visiting Suresnes cemetery.jpg

Hello english team, I don't know if I ask on the good village. I need some help identifying the third character on the left after Donal Trump and William M. Matz. I read somewhere it is Superintendent Keith Stadler. But I'm not sure, due to his Linkedin Profile. Someone can help me please ? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpesenti (talkcontribs) 01:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If you click on the photo, the caption does indeed say it's Stadler. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • He’s pictured at a ceremony with Trump, implying that the picture was taken no earlier than January 2017, when Trump took office. But the article Keith J. Stalder#Biography says he retired in 2010, so assuming that’s the same person, he wouldn’t be doing that in 2017 or 2018. Loraof (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The gentleman in uniform next to Matz is Army Chaplain Timothy S. Mallard. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Britain's and France's attitudes towards decolonization on the eve of WWII[edit]

Does anyone here know what Britain's and France's attitudes towards decolonization were on the eve of World War II in 1939?

I know that WWII ushered in a grand era of decolonization and that Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany in order to protect Poland's independence, but I am wondering as to what Britain's and France's attitudes towards national self-determination for non-White peoples were at the start of WWII.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The classic statement of the British attitude was Churchill's in a 1942 speech-
"Let me, however, make this clear: we mean to hold our own. (Cheers) I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."John Z (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Although Churchill probably represented the most illiberal extreme of British political thought on the issue. The big idea of imperialism in the early 20th century was that by being under British administration, colonies would eventually (in the very distant future) develop into self-governing partners like Canada and Australia. In the meantime, they could be exploited for resources without any cost to the domestic tax-payer. During the 1930s, there was the realisation that social and economic development of the colonies needed to be funded by British government. Some reading:
Decolonisation in the way it actually happened was not really intentional, but became unavoidable after independence for India and Pakistan in 1947 (itself a failure of a policy of measured progress towards self-government, the Government of India Act 1935) - see Governing Africa: the Imperial Mind in British Colonies, 1938-1947, in the light of Indian Experience by Alan Cousins.
Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Empirically, Britain had a much more, erm, friendly attitude towards its colonies which had substantial White populations. It had notably granted dominion status or responsible government to several colonies prior to World War II, those being Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and Ireland. They all have something in common... --Jayron32 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that racism wasn't a big factor, but by the end of the First World War, all of those that you mentioned could be described as developed economies, whereas many (particularly African) colonies were a long way from having the wherewithal to successfully make their way in the world. The obvious remedy for the the paternalistic mindset of the time was continued colonial administration. Dominion status for South Africa and Ireland (which was part of the UK and not a colony) were the result of peace treaties to end wars and not part of any intentional policy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"Developed" vs. "Undeveloped" is also because of racism. Why did the British Empire feel the importance of developing the Canadian and Australian economies to the point where the countries could support responsible government, whereas in other places they did not? To say "countries with less white people were less developed" is not an accident. There was a deliberate difference in how the colonizing power treated different colonies, and that had a DIRECT impact on the economic development of those countries. The British government also set the criteria for responsible government in a deliberately racist way "Do we have enough white people to run this country" was their yardstick. The fact that London also felt the need to invest economically in those colonies to develop them to the point that they could run themselves successfully was part of that attitude, not a coincidence. It's a feature, not a bug, of the racist colonial system. This article explains some of it quite well, and how a country like Britain decided which economies to industrialize, and which to keep extractive is why some colonies (the white ones) were ready for independence sooner. --Jayron32 13:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Economics[edit]

Hi, I would be grateful if someone can provide Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980) Lectures on Public Economics, Mc-Graw Hill. Thanks in advance --Abhinav619 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Abhinav619, you need to ask this at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Palestine did not exist before it was called Palestine[edit]

In German:

Auf Ihrer Seite zu Kaiser Hadrian steht:  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian_(Kaiser)  
„Aus Iudaea wurde die Provinz Syria Palaestina  <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina . Hadrian bewertete  den schließlichen Sieg so hoch, dass er im Dezember 135 die zweite  imperatorische Akklamation entgegennahm; doch verzichtete er auf einen  Triumph <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6mischer_Triumph .

Das ist meines Wissens korrekt. Deshalb heißt es, dass der Begriff „Palästina“ erst seit 135 n.Chr.

existiert. 

Doch Ihre Seite https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6misches_Pal%C3%A4stina

Beginnt mit dem Satz: „Das römische Palästina bestand von 63 v. Chr. 
bis etwa 634 n. Chr.“

Ich sehe da einen Widerspruch. 
Geschichtsklitterung ist sehr problematisch. Im Jahr 63 v.Chr. gab es noch kein „Palästina“, weder römisch noch anders.

Bei deutschen Themen würden Sie wahrscheinlich umsichtiger formulieren und aus „Germanen“ weder „Deutsche“ noch „Bundesbürger“ machen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulrichsahm (talkcontribs) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Wrong venue - discussions about articles on the German language Wikipedia need to take place on the German language Wikipedia. It is a separate project with different policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hallo Ulrichsahm, leider können wir Ihnen hier (englischer Wikipedia) nicht helfen. Bitte stellen Sie Ihrer Frage in der deutschen Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Auskunft. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't ABC nor CBS make a major cable news channel like Fox News and MSNBC?[edit]

Is the different flavors of CNN market already full? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, CBS has CBSN and ABC once had Satellite News Channel. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
News has become very competitive worldwide. You can watch Bloomberg, Al Jazeera or Sky News life 24/7 for free on youtube. I wouldnt invest a cent in a new news company. --Kharon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the later article mentions plans, which were abandoned after Fox News and MSNBC, to launch a new 24 hour news channel. It also mentions they did eventually launch another 24 hour news channel ABC News Now which lasted much longer than SNC but also ultimately failed. Finally it mentions that they do still have Fusion TV although it's somewhat different from other attempts. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
ABC News recently launched a 24/7 live streaming service called ABC News Live. It seems that they have realized (like everyone else soon will) that cable and broadcast TV is a slowly dying industry, and that most people in the U.S. are moving towards streaming services like Roku, Hulu, Netflix, etc. So they DO have a 24-hour news service. They just haven't put it on the cable or satellite platforms. It's available online and through streaming services. --Jayron32 12:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Image[edit]

Is this image in copyright? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

About when was it taken and when was the book published? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
And was it a work of the US government? (Both the photo and the place you found it.) --76.69.46.228 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. If it's a US government work, it could be public domain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems as if was published in Infantry (magazine) in 1947 which is published by the United States Army Infantry School, so it's a work of the US government for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}. On the other hand, per the Copyright Act of 1909, such publications might contain works that are copyrighted. In this case, there is no copyright notice on the image, so it should fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for expert input. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure that (publisher) was valid in 1947? The magazine in question explicitly says in several different places:

The Infantry Journal is published monthly by Infantry Journal, Incorporated, Publication date: 25th of proceeding month. Publication, Editorial, and Executive Offices: The Infantry Building, 1115 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington 6, D. C. Copyright, 1947, by U. S. Infantry Association.

(See [3] or [4] [5] [6]. There are also 2 other copyright notices for other works but not that photo or at least not that came up in the Google OCRed search.) IANAL, this isn't legal advice etc, but this seems to me to be a potentially valid copyright notice for the whole publication. I don't know details about the U. S. Infantry Association and it's possible a lot of the work, especially the photos are actually PD-USGov, but I would be cautious about such assumptions with a lot more analysis. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
See also [7] which explicitly notes that copyright was renewed in some cases. Also, I'm not convinced it's the same publication as that discussion in our article. That source suggests it ended in 1950. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Presidents and curse words[edit]

When was the first time the sitting POTUS used the word fuck and the general public found out during his presidency?

What was the first word you can't currently say on TV to be used that way? (scripted US broadcast television, not cable obviously).

If that word was a racial slur (some presidents were literally slaveowners after all), what was the first that wasn't?

What about using damn and hell in a way that has been considered religiously objectionable? (like damn the torpedoes, go to hell, or after stubbing your toe) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The first time it became a big issue in modern times was when the transcriptions of the Watergate tapes were released with frequent "expletive deleted" substitutions. See article Expletive deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Harry Truman was famous for using relatively mild (by today's standards) vulgarisms to refer to his political opponents. LBJ was known for his colorful language too. But those guys had some discretion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
[8]. It's like you guys aren't even trying. That's only a short smattering of presidential curse words, but we have a quote of Lincoln saying "shit" publicly, and one of Andrew Jackson's parrot trained to curse, and often having to be removed from places because of that. So take your pick. It's either as early as Lincoln, or Andrew Jackson's parrot. --Jayron32 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Jackson's parrot wasn't the POTUS, although it would have been a substantial improvement over the current one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Presumably, Jackson had to teach the parrot to curse; so he would have had to curse himself. In some odd way, it's a precursor to the Nixon tapes, in biological form. --Jayron32 15:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Jackson owned the one parrot, while the current guy has surrounded himself with parrots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The hard part of this question is the "found out during his presidency" part. Because they have ALL used foul language, all the way back to Washington. --M@rēino 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Which national movements were very weak before WWI but got their own state later on?[edit]

Which national movements were very weak before World War I but got their own state later on?

For instance, I can think of Belarus and the various countries of Central Asia eventually acquiring independence in spite of the fact that their people don't appear to have had much of a national consciousness in the pre-WWI era. Likewise, the Zionist movement doesn't appear to have been a particularly large one before WWI--with most Jews who left Eastern Europe before WWI moving to places other than Palestine. Still, the Zionist movement ultimately succeeded--as did the Muslim nationalist movement in British India with the creation of Pakistan.

Which other national movements didn't have much strength in the pre-WWI era but were ultimately successful later on--either as a result of their own efforts or as a result of external forces/actors intervening and supporting their cause (whether on purpose or accidentally)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Many former Ottoman states, especial countries like Iraq, only exist today at their current borders because of the way the remnants of the Ottoman Empire were carved up by European powers as League of Nations mandates. The concept of an "Iraqi nation" only exists because that land, and those people, were put together after WWI, just as one example. You could also look at some other post-colonial states, who's borders were arbitrarily based on European colonial borders, and who are in the process of forging a single national identity, to various degrees of success. --Jayron32 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some countries--such as Iraq--were indeed creations of Western colonial powers. I was well-aware of this. The reason that I didn't mention this in my OP was that while ideas such as Iraqi nationalism, Jordanian nationalism, et cetera didn't exist before World War I, the broader idea of Arab nationalism did, in fact, exist even before World War I. Our article about Arab nationalism talks about this--as does our article about the Arab Congress of 1913.
It's probably a similar story for Africa. While specific nationalism--such as Nigerian nationalism--might not have existed in the pre-World War I era, there were nevertheless nationalistic movements in Africa which resisted the European conquest of their lands. For instance, you could take a look at the Sokoto Caliphate's unsuccessful war against the British to preserve their independence.
What I am looking for here are nationalist movements for future nation-states--as in, states which are meant for a specific ethnic or ethno-religious group. The multi-ethnic states of the Middle East and Africa often wouldn't qualify for this. Futurist110 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe East Timor? It's national identity is tied to having been a Portuguese colony among a bunch of Dutch colonies, and its nationalist movement really only got started until the 1970s. See Carnation Revolution, the Portuguese coup after which East Timor became functionally independent, and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor which came a year and a half later. These events sparked the East Timorese nationalism movement, which only became a really independent country in 2002. I am not aware of any East Timorese national identity as such prior to the events of the mid 1970s. --Jayron32 13:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, though, if you actually wanted an answer, and are only looking for nation states, there are only about 200ish sovereign states listed at List of sovereign states, you can simply research the history of likely candidates there. It's a small, finite number of such places. --Jayron32 13:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

What's preventing passenger airships from coming back?[edit]

Helium prices? Inability to make H2 safe? Time to recoup vehicle cost? If they came back would bigger than Hindenberg (up to a point) offer economy of scale for some routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For passenger use, the fact that speeds would be significantly lower than that of jet planes is a problem. There have been a number of experiments with Hybrid airships for cargo use... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If tickets can be made cheaper than jets without making it too crowded then pensioners who don't need to be anywhere anytime soon might want a go. Whether there's enough travel value seekers with a lot of time on their hands I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless it was shown there is a niche in the market that passengers would fill at super premium prices, I don't see that the development costs could ever be paid back. And I don't think you ever get past the Hindenburg.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As per AnonMoos' comment, cargo airships seem more likely to make a resurgence than passenger ones - see [9] and [10] - though passenger airships as a tourist experience (rather than purely a means of getting from A to B) might become more common than currently - e.g. see [11]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Passenger planes are very effective, fast and reliable today. Airships are ideal for Safari and alike touristic or even scientific surveillance since they are able to very silently hover and move. All other person transport cases where practicality, time and cost become relevant, helicopters and planes are simply better. --Kharon (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The Hindenburg-class airships competed against ocean liners, not really planes (there were no scheduled commercial trans-Atlantic flights until just before WW2), which wouldn't be the case for an airship today, of course. Airships could theoretically use less fuel than jets do... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
TRAVELLERS could soon be flying in luxury blimps with see-through bottoms and double bedrooms (July 2018) reference the British Airlander 10 hybrid airship. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince consort and Queen consort[edit]

Why is the term Prince consort often used for a husband of a reigning queen, but Queen consort usually used for a wife of a reigning king? JACKINTHEBOXTALK 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 16#Prince Consort. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

US government shutdown[edit]

How can it possibly be legal to require government employees to work without being paid? I heard there was a suit filed... But are the courts operating? The situation seems nuts. Thanks. 2601:648:8200:4741:14A5:BE86:C93C:C276 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The government employees will be paid in the future, whether they work or not.
Sleigh (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The government employees and contractors are under the aegis of the executive branch; in the U.S. the three branches of government operate more-or-less independently, with each responsible for a different aspect of governing. The legislative (congress) writes laws. They are running fine, and they and their staff are getting paid. The judicial (courts) interpret laws and try cases where the laws are violated, and as far as I know, they are still getting paid. The executive branch administers the laws set by congress, mostly by spending money to do things congress told them to do. If congress doesn't appropriate them any money, they don't get paid. When we use "government shutdown" what we mean is that the budget has expired to pay the executive branch employees and contractors, so they can't be paid. The government, being the government, can require whatever they want, and they can require certain "vital employees" to work even without pay, mostly security personnel. This is a partial shutdown, because there are some parts of the administration that have been funded by separate bills, but those parts funded by the Omnibus spending bill which expired recently are basically not being paid. The most recent such bill was the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 which would have expired on September 30, 2018, however it was extended via a series of Continuing resolutions until a month ago, when Trump announced his intention to veto any future appropriation bill that did not include funding for a border wall, and Senate leader Mitch McConnell agreed to support him in that endeavour. The reason those "vital employees" continue to work without pay is that if they don't, they get fired, and then the government would just hire someone else to do their job. There are lawsuits pending regarding the legality of this: [12]. --Jayron32 13:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There are, unfortunately, only so many problems that can be solved with pizza. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that like "it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes"? --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe if we tried hamberders next time it'll work better? --Jayron32 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No, "essential" federal employees continue to work because they're dedicated to their job and their mission — although reliable reporting has noted that many are beginning to simply not show up/call in sick because they have to find other work to pay the bills. The government can't just "hire someone else to do their job" at this point — for one, who the hell is going to accept a job that doesn't include pay? Moreover, human resources functions are not "essential" and those staffs have all been entirely furloughed, so the physical process of hiring can't take place. Never mind that it generally takes six months for a federal agency to hire a new employee, let alone an employee requiring such deep training and experience as weather forecasting or air traffic control. At a certain point, these things are going to start breaking down. We've missed one paycheck at this point — that's hard enough. Miss two or three or four paychecks? Those "essential" employees are going to start walking en masse because their mortgage payments aren't shut down, and those of us who are furloughed are just going to find other permanent employment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Why say no when I already pre-agreed with you? Seems odd to take a contrary tone. I never said that anything you just stated was wrong, nor do I disagree with any of it. --Jayron32 20:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
What I was saying "no" to was the idea that federal employees are showing up to work because they don't want to be fired and replaced. There's literally no way to replace anyone who quits until the shutdown's over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
They could still be fired for not showing up, though. Replacement would come later. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Put yourself, say, in a TSA field manager's shoes. Firing someone for missing a day or two of work in the middle of a shutdown is only going to make your job (keeping a security checkpoint operating) *more* difficult, because that person is now not going to show up to work without pay *at all* as opposed to at least showing up three days a week. And as there is no way to replace that person until long after the shutdown is over, your choice is to ruthlessly enforce rules and rapidly attrite your available workforce, or operate in a manner which recognizes that your people have to be able to pay for gas to get to work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that they do want to be fired? That seems odd? I understand the dedication to work, and belief in one's mission, but people also need paychecks eventually, and fear of unemployment is a complicating factor in why people stay in unfriendly working conditions, including reporting to work even without the expectation of pay. Just "not working" is not an option for most people. --Jayron32 13:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm saying many people are willing to work with only the promise of future pay because they care about their missions and their work. The question is, how long can people afford to work without pay before they literally have to quit to find work that actually provides a paycheck *now*? Historically, federal workers like myself were willing to ride it out because these shutdowns were relatively short and things would work out. We're in completely uncharted waters at this point, going on a month. The number of people who can afford to spend their days working and *not* have a paycheck coming in for that work will start to drop precipitously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I've never said that people were not willing to work with only the promise of future pay because they care about their missions and their work. At no point did I say that people did not have that as a reason for working. I also said that people who don't follow the orders of their superiors and report to work can be terminated with cause (aka fired), and that was a reason for working as well. There are close to a million people affected by this furlough, and it can be certain that at least some of them do show up to work because they need to keep their jobs once the furlough is over, and if they didn't report to work, they fear being fired. Those same people can also believe in the mission of their job. People are quite capable of both believing in their work, and be in fear of losing their jobs for not reporting to work. Also, insofar as there are lots of workers, there could be some who are motivated only by the fear, and not the love, and also some too who are only motivated by the love, and not the fear. People can have different motivations. They aren't all identical to you. --Jayron32 14:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Earlier this week, Jimmy Fallon's monologue included a comment that unpaid federal workers might be going to Mexico to look for jobs! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Federal jobs offer some very valuable benefits like very good health care and retirement plan (Federal Employees Retirement System), job security and many special bonuses from companies who use that to build up goodwill with the federal system or just value federal Employees as most reliable customers. So these jobs turn out to be very attractive no matter they can also bring some problems. Anyway, general companies sometimes also run into financial trouble and cant pay their workers for some time or suddenly close down with owning you 2-3 month payment. So government shutdowns are far from the worst things that can happen to Employees. --Kharon (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Usually that's because the business in question literally doesn't have the cash in the bank to pay its employees, and it is waiting on some future influx to make them solvent again. That's not what is going on here. The U.S. government has the cash on hand. There's plenty of fully liquid assets in the treasury, just sitting there, that could be payed out. They're just refusing to pay their employees as a bargaining chip in a petty fight over building a border wall. --Jayron32 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Why is Lampedusa the goal of many migrants coming from Africa but not Pantelleria?[edit]

During the European migrant crisis but also before, people trying to migrate to Europe have been using ships from Lybia to reach Italian or Maltese islands, especially Lampedusa which is some 80 km from the African coast of Algeria Tunisia. Pantelleria, another Italian island, is just under 60 km away from Algeria Tunisia. So why do migrants risk trips from Lybia to Lampedusa instead of from Algeria Tunisia to Pantelleria? Is Algeria Tunisia that effective in preventing migrants from coming into the country? Our article on the migrant crisis does not mention either Algeria Tunisia or Pantelleria which I find odd (and potentially needs expansion). Regards SoWhy 10:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you might find this article and report by a UN-affiliated NGO useful: [13]. It says Tunisia is a destination for migrants rather than a waypoint and has some discussion of visa requirements and penalties that play into this. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The answer seems to be because Lampedusa has the infrastructure to deal with the immigrants, and Pantelleria does not. Lampedusa is home to the Lampedusa immigrant reception center, which is designed to house and process migrants who are coming to Europe. Pantelleria has no such facilities, as far as I can tell. --Jayron32 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find detailed information about the seizing of the Zeiss optical works to Russia as war reparations?[edit]

It's briefly gone over in the articles on Carl Zeiss AG ("As part of the World War II reparations, the Soviet army took most of the existing Zeiss factories and tooling back to the Soviet Union as the Kiev camera works.") as well as Kiev (brand) ("After the war had ended, the Soviet Union demanded new sets of Contax tools from the original toolmaker in Dresden...") as well as referenced in this overview of Kiev rangefinder cameras and this page about Contax history but I'd like some better sources on this particular facet of postwar reparations. Does anyone know of better sources I could read over, or at least where to start looking? Thanks, Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

See John H. Noble for part of it... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this account in International Law Reports is the most detailed I’ve found. Some other sources with brief mentions, in case that helps: The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (one paragraph), An Economic History of the U.S.S.R. (on the context of the reparations in general), The East German Economy, 1945-2010 (mention of Zeiss continuing in Dresden). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You best search under "VEB Carl Zeiss Jena" for the time after the war until Germany was reunited. The russians obviously started rethinking their Restitution plans when they noticed how successful the other allies put the german population in their sectors back to work. --Kharon (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

William Royle of Rusholme[edit]

I would be interested to learn more about William Royle of Rusholme, who was "a shippers merchant, the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Manchester Liberal Federation and ... wrote a history of Rusholme which was published in 1905. His Liberal connexions are what most interest me. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there’s a biography of him, not viewable online: [14]. But some fairly recent publications have cited it, so it must be accessible somewhere… I see a copy on Amazon, or maybe you could get it via a uni library with interlibrary loan or even WP:RX. Other sources:
70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Sexualities[edit]

Lgbtqhx,?? How many different sexulaities are present on earth and why?86.8.202.148 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You could start with Template:Gender and sexual identities... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
ALL of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The ever-growing initialism does so because it lumps together multiple distinct but inter-related topics: sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and so on. For the literal question being asked about the number of sexualities, human sexuality spectrum is the place to start. To better understand why the initialism encompasses so many things, see sex and gender distinction and LGBT. I've found this to be of use. The page goes on for some time into details, but the graphic at the top summarizes the topic about as well as possible, given the complexity. Matt Deres (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

battleships[edit]

Japanese battleship Nagato's secondary guns, the 14 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

HMS Nelson (28)'s secondary guns, the BL 6-inch Mk XXII naval gun, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

Italian battleship Roma (1940)'s secondary guns, the 152 mm /55 Italian naval gun Models 1934 and 1936, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

French battleship Richelieu's secondary guns, the Canon de 152 mm Modèle 1930, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

Basically, WWII-era battleships used "cruiser guns" as their secondary armament. This is true for every country with the notable exception of US. WWII-era US battleship were all armed with "destroyer guns" as their secondary armament (AFAIK).

1. What's the reason behind this idiosyncrasy? Were there some sort of US doctrine or a commissioned study that advocated for this arrangement? Are there any naval history books that cover this design choice in more detail?

2. Were there any major exceptions to this rule? I.e. were there other countries that also used "destroyer guns" as their battleship secondary armament? Or were there any US battleships that had "cruiser guns"? Mũeller (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The 5" guns used on US destroyers were somewhat heavier than than the guns used on British destroyers at the time, the 4.7-inch gun. However, more modern British battleships, the King George V-class battleship (1939), had moved away from a 6" low-angle secondary battery to the QF 5.25-inch naval gun which could also be used against aircraft and was much closer to the US secondary armament, although admittedly it was also used to arm Dido-class anti-aircraft cruisers. Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input!
Interesting that the British went with a slightly smaller caliber as the war progressed. Mũeller (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Queen Elizabeth-class and Revenge-class battleships had their 6" batteries stripped out and replaced by 4-inch dual-purpose guns to improve their anti-aircraft capability. The secondary batteries were originally intended to deal with destroyer attacks, which were too quick for the big guns, but aircraft turned out to be a bigger menace. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The importance of aircraft to naval warfare of WWII should not be understated here, as Alansplodge points out. There's an aphorism in military history "Generals fight the last war", and at the start of WWII, it was expected that the naval supremacy would rest on giant battleships, as had happened in WWI, where battleship-centered naval warfare ruled the waves. So the admirals prepared for a battleship-centered war. The change to different guns came about because WWII wasn't ruled by battleships, it was ruled by the aircraft carrier and the submarine, with the major naval threats coming from a directions (above and below) that it had never come from before. Aircraft in particular were a threat that required major changes in tactics and weaponry, and that's why the major decisive battles of the war tended to involve carriers, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Battle of Midway, etc. Once the leadership came around to understanding the threat carrier groups presented, they started to arm their ships in a way to defend against them. --Jayron32 14:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, nobody has a crystal ball and things don't always turn out as intelligent people predict. In the pre-war Royal Navy, considerable efforts had been made to rearm capital ships with the best anti-aircraft technology available, so that big ships could put up very impressive barrages that were thought to be unsurvivable for enemy aircraft, and armour on the most modern ships was thought to give good protection from bombs and torpedoes. In the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, the Home Fleet survived weeks of bombardment from the air with fairly limited losses, which suggested that the air theorists were wrong and the naval theorists were right. Later experience was to prove otherwise. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Todays 155 mm Artillery (see Category:155_mm_artillery) has a reach of up to 30 Km. The 155 mm projectiles in the widely used M109 howitzer weight around 50 Kg (see M795), so they can still be handled fast enough manually by one loader Its just a size that works optimal in reality. Smaller is a loss of impact, bigger is to difficult to handle. Its also an logistic advantage when one type Ammunition can be used by multiple platforms and even allied forces, like the 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition. --Kharon (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the latest back pay has been?[edit]

Which would depend on when the missed paydays of the other other long shutdowns were and how many days after it ended before they got paid. Will the next payday be soon after the shutdown ends or will they have to wait for the first or second regularly scheduled once per 2 weeks day after it ends? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Still seems vague as to when exactly furloughed workers will receive their back pay, but the President has signed legislation that will guarantee that they receive it "as soon as possible when the shutdown ends." [15] Of course, the shutdown has to end first and that may still take a while the way things are going. --Xuxl (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, the longest may be 21 years (as planned) or 12 years (as finally adjusted) per the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 and modified via the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act of 1936. Soldiers from WWI were granted extra combat pay in 1924 in the form of certificates that matured only after 21 years. They were OK with this until they all lost their jobs in the Great Depression, then a bunch of them came to Washington to demand their pay in 1932 (see Bonus Army). Congress moving at the pace Congress does, finally agreed to pay them their back pay in 1936. --Jayron32 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

“QSC” in acknowledgements of the book “Lethal White” by Robert Galbraith/ JK Rowling[edit]

In the acknowledgement of her book “Lethal White”, JKR writes:

“The QSC, on the other hand, just got in the way.”

I have no idea what she means and am very curious. Is she having a go at a British institution? —Lgriot (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone asked this question on a Rowling fan forum and got no replies [16]. I suspect it's some kind of private reference that the general public is not supposed to get. There is no British institution going by those initials. --Viennese Waltz 07:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
In the Q code, QSC apparently means "Are you a cargo vessel?" if that helps (probably not SFriendly.gif). -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Turkish reaction to OKC bombing[edit]

Per Oklahoma City bombing#Federal and state government aid, Bill Clinton was meeting with Turkish PM Tansu Çiller when he was notified of the bombing. Did Çiller or her government offer any official reactions? I'd like to put a Turkish reaction into the "International reaction" section (we mention international reactions from Iran and the PLO as well as NATO members like Turkey), and I'd expect a reaction since she was in the US at the moment, but I can't find anything — when I run a search for <"Tansu Çiller" "oklahoma city">, most of the results (examples 1 and 2) merely mention the fact that she was in the US at the time, and the exceptions are outright false positives. It's not a matter of diacritics, since most of the results, including both of the examples I gave, use "Ciller" rather than "Çiller". Searches for <turkey "oklahoma city" bombing> return nothing at all relevant, and if I remove <bombing>, I get results related to wild turkeys. I've gotten no useful results despite checking a range of databases: Gale War and Terrorism Collection, Ebsco Academic Search Ultimate, Ebsco International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, Wiley Online Library, Gale US History Collection, Project Muse, JSTOR, and a 24-database history bundle from ProQuest. Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)