Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Select a section:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • 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.
See also:

January 22[edit]

Blake's bowels[edit]

"The great heart faltered on the threshold, And darkness took the land his soul desired" - Blake died before he could once more be there for an hour when the shade draws in beside the hedgerows. His bowels were buried in St Andrew's Church, Plymouth. Are they still there and is there a monument or memorial of some kind? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Before St. Andrew's Church, Plymouth was gutted by incendiary bombs in 1941, there was a stone tablet in the floor at the foot of the chancel steps which recorded: "Admiral Robert Blake Died 17th August, 1657. Blake grown sickly returnes home and in site of this port dyeth was embalmed his bowells buried here by the mayors seat door. His corpe at Westminster among ye Kings".
Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset, Volume 28 (1960) p. 243 (snippet view). Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The church was rebuilt by Frederick Etchells, this is what he started with. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

School and Society[edit]

I have a question that really needs the help of a librarian. There’s an old, American educational weekly known as School and Society that was started by James McKeen Cattell in 1915. The problem is, I can’t find out when they ceased publication and released their last issue. There’s some evidence it continued until the 1970s. I’ve always thought that sites like Worldcat would tell you about the publication history of a periodical, but I guess I was wrong. The New York publisher went by the name "Society for the Advancement of Education", but that name is used by a lot of different groups now. There is a group still using that name in New York that publishes the oddly-titled USA Today magazine, but I have no idea if there is any connection. What’s strange, is that after being published for so many decades, School and Society has very little to nothing written about it, as if it has been wiped off the face of the Earth. Google Books digitized many of the first dozen or so volumes, but then it just disappears. If anyone has access to information about the full publishing history run of the journal, I would greatly appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Not much help I'm afraid, but I found this reference to an article published in the Summer 1970 edition. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. That is helpful, because when I search for volumes past 98, I can only find volume 99 published in 1971, and the trail goes cold after that. What I still don’t understand, is why there isn’t an entry in WorldCat indicating it was published from 1915-1971, if that is indeed the case? In other words, where do I find a detailed bibliographical entry for this periodical indicating the publishing date range? Surely, that must exist somewhere, right? Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
One more: I found a reference to (March 1972) “Student Strikes in East Los Angeles,” School and Society (now Intellect), 100 (2340), pp. 182-185 at Historical Student Involvement Bibliography (about halfway down the page). Maybe that means that the journal changed it's name to "Intellect", but searching for that on Google is a bit like trying to identify a John Smith. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe this one? Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you’re right. There’s also this. I just wish there was a master index for this kind of thing that could record the name change. It’s also weird that for a magazine published for more than 50 years, there is nothing written about the name change. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Update. Only found one WorldCat entry which confirms the name change: "Continues: School and society. From Vol. 103 subtitled: The national review of professional thought." Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

Biden's gaffes[edit]

Hi! I've seen there is an article about Bushisms. Should there be an article about Biden's gaffes? Please don't make it political, I'm not American. Kindly answer without mentioning his opponent. Ericdec85 (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Laughing at stutterers is horrible but I first saw this in a version with a giant font transcription refreshing every second or so and when he starts stuttering it switches to accumulating each word in real-time till they're all over the screen and the before and after of the dude behind him.. that cracked me up. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I remember you could buy tear-away calendars of Bushisms. Maybe I'm misunderestimating the popularity of Biden's gaffes but I don't think he's quite on that level. I don't think he's come up with anything quite like covfefe yet, either. -- asilvering (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
From beyond the Atlantic, it seems the worst presidential gaffs on the grandest scale were made by that nice Mr Trump. We have a Trumpism article, but that is about ideology, rather like Stalinism. Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Or "United Shates".[1] --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Also "Nambia" and "bigly" (apparently the correct pronunciation of "big league"). Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
D'oh! The OP told us to answer without mentioning his opponent, but I think we got away with it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The OP asked. But OP's can't give orders. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
But we aim to please. Alansplodge (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
"...Onions are beautiful things." --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
In my life, I've never seen anything like that for a Democrat President. Every Democrat President is treated as a saviour to the nation. Every Republican President (except baby Bush because he was far too stupid) is satan. You can publish a lot of books about how terrible satan is. You can't publish books about how terrible a saviour is. (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Asked whether Obama was no better than Bush 43 or Blair, Chomsky replied, "In many ways he's worse."[2] What is holding you back from starting a publishing house devoted to promulgating works that expose the terribleness of Democratic US Presidents?  --Lambiam 17:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure such houses exist. The issue is availability. Do they produce anything that is available? I'm sure it is easier to find some nutjob anti-Democrat website than it is to find a book. (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Check your local Barnes & Noble. There's a whole raft of books by "conservative" authors, i.e. those who don't like Democrats. And you're probably too young to remember how Bill Clinton was mercilessly savaged by comedians. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Biden hasn't been in office that long, and most other Democratic presidents from the last century that I can think of didn't have the outsized personalities that would lead to books being written about their foibles. The exception that comes to mind is Lyndon Johnson, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are such books about him. As for stuff criticizing Democrats from other than partisan conservatism: yes of course that is a thing. Look at or for example. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Unreported cases of domestic violence[edit]

It goes as a known fact that 80% of DV cases are unreported (the "iceberg" model). My question is, if the cases are indeed unreported, how do we eventually count them for this statistic? Gil_mo (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Gil_mo There is no mention of your "known fact" in our Domestic violence article. Where did you get this from? I think you will find it's an estimate rather than a "known fact", whatever that is.--Shantavira|feed me 09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I found this number it in other places. But nevertheless, how do we know there are underreported issues when they are not reported? How could we make statistical data out of the underreported cases? Gil_mo (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Victimization surveys were developed to address the limitations of police statistics as crime data sources (Skogan 1977), and estimates produced from crime surveys can be used to mitigate the sources of measurement error in police data. From Measuring the dark figure of crime in geographic areas. Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
See also Dark figure of crime (Wikipedia Has An Article On Everything!). Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, the "unreported" cases are actually reported, but not to the "official" database? Gil_mo (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that a projection (or guestimate) has been made on the basis of the results of surveys. Over here we have the Crime Survey for England and Wales which is conducted rather like an opinion poll, they don't ask everyone in the country. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The samples for such surveys cover only a small fraction of the population. Most crimes not reported to law-enforcement agencies are not reported at all, whether directly or indirectly, to crime data sources.  --Lambiam 14:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
So if amongst those in the sample group who had experienced domestic violence, 80% of them hadn't reported it to the police, it might be assumed that a similar ratio occurs across the whole country. It's not an exact science. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It is all too true that ensuring that a sample is representative of the population is not a hard science. The next hurdle, for a survey conducted with a questionnaire, is to design the right questions with the right set of responses, which requires an understanding of the terrain, the lack of which may be the motivation for the survey. Then the hope is to obtain appropriate and correct responses, but this cannot guaranteed. The risk that a respondent's situation does not fit any of a fixed set of responses is real. If the survey is conducted through open interviews, interviewees my be shy to give truthful responses, and responses given may be hard to classify. Once the data are in, assuming the sample was representative and the responses are correct, extrapolating the results to population statistics together with corresponding confidence intervals is an exact science. Of course, one should never state that "5% of all people have been abducted by aliens"; at best it should be "5% of the adult population of Georgia report to have been abducted by aliens".  --Lambiam 22:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that the results were not exact. I agree that all the factors that you mention are calculated very carefully by people much more intelligent than my humble self. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The National Crime Victimization Survey may be of interest to the OP. I'm guessing that it includes coverage of domestic violence, but I admit to not having read the article. Edit: perhaps also of interest may be its British counterpart, the British Crime Survey. Eliyohub (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

Albrecht Dürer — translation[edit]


Is there an English translation of Albrecht Durers "Four books on human porportion" I am trying to get along just from the drawings but I dont understand

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There are translations to Dutch, French, Italian and Latin, and an English translation of an Italian commentary on the Four books, but I haven't found any references to an English translation. (By the way, you appear to be located near the pole of inaccessibility of the 48 contiguous US states.)  --Lambiam 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Some WorldCat results: Human proportions. Albrecht Dürer; Walter Leopold Strauss, New York Arabis Books 1974, Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) on human proportion : 18 art postcards. Albrecht Dürer; Peter Moser, Bamberg : Babenberg Verlag, 2005. English (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The WorldCat entry (in which "Arabis Books" is a typo for "Abaris Books") concerns Volume 5 of the six-volume series The Complete Drawings of Albrecht Durer .[3][4] As far as I can tell, it contains reproductions of the drawings of Dürer's Four books with annotations by Strauss, but not a translation of its text.  --Lambiam 20:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

The Skating Minister[edit]

Today’s (January 25, 2022) featured picture is "The Skating Minister." The text says it was "virtually unknown until 1949." I checked both the article on the picture and on the painter - neither mentions this or why it became popular after then. Why was it unknown and why did it become popular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis2fan (talkcontribs) 04:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That comment is in the very first entry for the article, and its editor has not been here for over ten years. However, looking in (pay site), there's an article from The Independent, London, March 4, 2005, p.13, which says "Hardly anyone knew of the artwork, which is not mentioned in any of the early books on Raeburn, until it was bought for the nation in 1949. Ellis Waterhouse, then the NGS [National Gallery of Scotland] director, bought it for 525 pounds at Christie's in London." It's worth mentioning that the article was actually reporting on research that claims the attribution is incorrect; that the real creator is Henri-Pierre Danloux, "a little-known French painter." --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Well done Mr Baseball Bugs, using those details I found this article, which says of the 1949 auction:
Christie’s had on this occasion included a photograph of the picture in its promotional literature and that is likely to be the first time it had ever been reproduced.
It goes on to say that it didn't become really well-known until a London exhibition in 1997, it was not included in a 1972 book of the gallery's best items. I will update the article later. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Phew, I had to add in a new section, The Skating Minister#History. Feel free to edit if anything else comes to light. Great question Wis2fan, we like ones like that! Alansplodge (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the prompt research and answer. I get curious about offhand statements. Maybe it should be added it was unknown because it was in a private collection or private hands (my assumption). Sorry I forget to sign sometimes. Wis2fan (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph now amended. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

History of German canning[edit]

Hi! I'm trying to find some good sources on the history of canning in Germany, but I'm coming up empty handed. Do you have any recommendations? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The best I can do is the briefest of mentions in Food Culture in Germany (p. 21). Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Another attempt yields a lot more detail at Foreign Trade in Canned Goods by United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce (1912) pp. 35-43. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
These sources have been helpful; thank you! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I found a webpage about a cannery in Wolfenbüttel founded in 1872 by Gustav Busch (a brother of Wilhelm Busch) and partners, said to be one of the first in Germany. It is an excerpt from an article on the cannery published in a book with the title Heimatbuch für den Landkreis Wolfenbüttel 2014. (The cannery is mentioned in Weissweiler's biography of Wilhelm Busch, but only in passing.)  --Lambiam 00:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
This page states that the first canneries in Germany appeared in the 1840s. But here we read that the first German tin cans were manufactured in 1830 by Heinrich Züchner. The firm he founded apparently still exists; it is not a cannery but a wholesaler in packaging goods and materials. The page does not say who the buyers of these 1830 cans were, but writes that in 1886 Heinrich's son Rudolf founded a cannery in Seesen with Heinrich Sieburg, which he left three years later to found his own company.  --Lambiam 00:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
So cool! Thank you for your help finding these sources! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Vanderbilt connection to White Star Line and Cunard Line[edit]

George Washington Vanderbilt II sailed aboard the RMS Olympic, due to switching sailing schedules from RMS Titanic. How was he related to Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt, Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney and Timothy Olyphant?2603:7000:8100:F444:F408:EB4B:D85F:6EF7 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You can see the family tree in Vanderbilt_family RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I looked, and got confused.2603:7000:8100:F444:F408:EB4B:D85F:6EF7 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is a pruned tree:
 --Lambiam 11:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It's an odd way of presenting a family tree, sideways and with reproduction by parthenogenesis. If I read it correctly then George II was Gert and Alf's uncle, and Timmy's great-great-great uncle. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks perfectly normal to me. It is only depicting the direct lineage, not the "outside contributions" of spouses. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Lambiam's presentation works well. It's a style I often use in summarizing my own family trees. I would normally add the spouses too, but that doesn't seem important to the OP's question. Another way to state Timothy's connection is that George is his great-great-granduncle. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any major Nazi war criminals still at large?[edit]

As topic. Not talking about some random guy who was a party member, or a soldier in the Waffen SS when he was 16 back in the day - but people who were legitimately responsible and had control over the atrocities that were committed. I know about 15 years ago there was someone who got sent down (rightly, as I recall from reading about it) for life for 100,000 counts of conspiracy to murder. Was he the last? Am I misremembering, or were there some old Nazis on the FBI's most wanted list about 20 years ago, next to Bin Laden? Anyway, are all the really bad guys dead and gone now? -- (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

List of most-wanted Nazi war criminals lists a few thought to be still polluting the earth (shown in yellow). The worst of them is Herbert Wahler. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Peculiar — he doesn't seem to be "wanted" in the sense of a guy on the lam. The impression I get is they know exactly where he is and they don't have enough evidence to charge him, or at least say they don't. Maybe we shouldn't be referring to a living person as "the worst of them" without that evidence in hand. --Trovatore (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that he served in the Einsatzkommando unit Einsatzgruppe C, whereas the other survivors were accused of being guards or accessories, with the possible exception of Z. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
If you follow the articles given as sources to his article, he apparently claims he didn't kill anyone and was there in some sort of medical capacity. I don't know enough about this unit to judge whether that's a plausible claim or not (and I also don't know who or what "Z" might be). --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Probably whoever put him or her in the table as "Z (unnamed)", right after "Y (unnamed)", doesn't know much either. Both are footnoted to the Wiesenthal Center, which also lists X. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that helps me understand Clarityfiend's comments about "the other survivors" as well. It wasn't clear to me that that had to do with the table(s) in the list article; I was looking more at the Wahler article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Prosecutions of former personnel at the Nazi concentration camps are still ongoing,[5][6][7] but although they are prosecuted as criminals for their roles in the Nazi atrocities, they are perhaps not what one would call "major" war criminals.  --Lambiam 10:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It should be noted that we're reaching a point where all former Nazis are reaching the end of their expected lives; someone who was say 18 years old in 1945 would be about 95 years old today. According to this, there were only slightly more than 20,000 German centenarians in 2020, and those 20,000 will likely not be alive much longer. Within a decade or so, there likely may not be any more living former Nazis. --Jayron32 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are quite a few new Nazis...and not just in Germany. But most of them are only wanna-be war-criminals so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
In common usage, such people are neonazis, and not really relevant to people who may have committed war crimes on behalf of the actual Nazi party during World War II. --Jayron32 13:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Also note that it was not just Germans that were involved; the SS recruited in the France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway; this article describes attempts to prosecute former Danish SS members. The Nazis also raised large numbers of Schutzmannschaft auxilliary units from occupied areas of the Soviet Union, who were often employed to carry out the worst atrocities. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The French, Belgian, Dutch, Danish, and Norwegian Nazis are no less subject to the arrow of time than the Germans are, and as such, none of them are younger than their mid 90s either. They'll all be dead in 10-15 years as well. --Jayron32 13:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, if the Reichsflugscheiben go at a significant fraction of c, they least if that Jewish theory is correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Does wealth itself have "diminishing returns"?[edit]

I'm enrolled in a Bachelor of Business, and some of my units involved studying economics.

One of the things I learned, is that there are three or four common "elements of production": land, labour, capital, and natural resources.

A key point is that increasing any given element, in isolation, will have diminishing returns. For example, having one tractor (i.e. "capital") may make your farm far more productive. But after you have enough tractors, additional tractors will help little or nothing, unless you increase the area available for you to farm ("land"), and/or the necessary "labour" needed to drive the tractors.

Ditto for any of the other elements. Extra land won't help much, if you lack the capital and/or labour to exploit it. Likewise, extra labour isn't useful once you run out of land and/or capital to use the labour for/with.

This raised an interesting question: does one's accumulation of personal wealth itself have a point of "diminishing returns"? Or even, dare I say it, negative returns?

Like, if somebody wins $100 million at the lottery, will his or her life improve more than the person who wins a "mere" $2 million? In other words, if the other elements needed for a happier life aren't available, is there a point at which extra money won't help much, if at all?

From what I've heard (and this is purely anecdotal), it often is better to "merely" win a million or two, rather than $50 million plus. The former individual's life becomes more comfortable, but the basic structure remains intact. They still have reason to keep their existing job and life. By contrast, winning $50 million means that one has no need to ever work again, which can cause a "collapse" of a person's life and social circle. As I said, this is purely anecdotal.

Anyways, I'm trying to understand this through either the lens of economic theory, or real life studies of those who have accumulated (or, in the case of lottery winners, had a sudden windfall of) various amounts of wealth, from "small" to "large", and the differing effects on their happiness and quality of life.

@DOR (HK): you're our resident economist. What are your thoughts on diminishing returns and personal wealth?

@John Z: and @Dragons flight: you two have also answered my economics questions before. Any thoughts on this one? Eliyohub (talk)

  • This is a synopsis of a well-covered study from a few years back which showed that, indeed, above a certain level, there is diminishing returns on the amount of additional happiness more money provides. It shows that, there was a maximum "gain of happiness" at around $75,000 per year (in 2010 dollars) and that above that point, while people were happier with more money, they showed less increases in happiness with more money. --Jayron32 15:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron, that was indeed an interesting and relevant article. Anybody else have anything to offer, I'd love to hear. Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm more of an international macro guy, but we all know money can't buy you love, nor happiness. The capital in economics is investment capital, not personal wealth, so it is probably better not to mix the two. Now, a person can invest, but the actual change in the amount of personal wealth should not follow the law of diminishing returns. Where you will find diminishing returns in when an excess of capital drives down the return on capital.DOR (HK) (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The econ jargon for this is the diminishing marginal utility of money. The thing is, you're trying to analyze this in terms of "hedonic utility" rather than from a strict homo economicus standpoint, and this is always going to be somewhat subjective. If someone has a real killer idea for a business they want to start, but needs capital to do so, they're probably going to be happier with $50 million to start their business than a smaller amount. Generally speaking there's nothing that keeps you from dumping your lotto winnings in a trust fund invested in index funds, setting up automatic disbursements to pay your bills, and going on living as before. Maybe a more fruitful way of looking at things is to ask why, given a big windfall, so many people feel they have to "change their lives", which would be a behavioral economics/psychology kind of thing. -- (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Lottery winners are a very unrepresentative sample so an unusual amount of blowing it all in a few years doesn't prove anything. They're all willing to have their name, physical appearance and number of millions won publicized and get bugged for donations (or should've realized that acceptance could result in being bugged for donations) and the more you play the more likely it is to win. So winners are often like my relative — extroverted hopey-feely people that play multiple tickets every day for like 20,000 days (that's 1 million percent of the dollars they play per day lost to vigorish in one lifetime), still dreaming about $x million every time even though they likely know you need to buy like 5 times the jackpot to have >50/50 odds, and picking birthdays even though picking highest possible numbers every time is clearly less of a ripoff. They might enjoy casinos too and even be addicted to it. If I somehow won a lot of money without everyone knowing then I'd quit almost any blue-collar job I might have as soon as deposit reversal became impossible. Even if I had to live in a tiny house to ensure not going broke by my 80s I'd quit most jobs in a heartbeat and and not be unfulfilled. Why use work for fulfillment when you can learn skills that people do for fun like sports, hobbies and games? I'd buy a pension that pays an inflation-adjusted check every month from age 85 to death (make sure it's really death and not 120), that way I can ensure not having to work or sleep in a car if immortality is invented. When 85 is near spend the OG dollars as early as I dare in case I die before getting to enjoy the safety buffer (stuff unlikely to cause death, so no prostitutes) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
While I agree they are an unrepresentative sample your second statement is simply wrong. In a number of places including the OP's Australia (see Murder of Graeme Thorne for one reason) lottery winners have the right to remain anonymous if they desire, and it's something many winners do take advantage of [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Other jurisdictions are more advanced than mine then. I don't know if it's still like this but New York jackpot winners (record USD65 million) are on the New York City metro area news with meter-long cheques (non-cashable). And the ticket fine print includes/d something to the effect of "we can pay zero for refusing". Including the other TV markets that's the population of Aus+NZ who can see on TV, even a tiny fraction of that begging with real and scam sob stories would still be a lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the discussion got side-tracked to windfall economics, but the largest and most diverse group to suddenly come into significant money must be heirs. DOR (HK) (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a theory that nothing can make you happier for more than a few years if you're already at your maximum sustainable happiness? Maybe you can do this more than once (go from peasant who never saw or walked to seeing paraplegic, before getting used to that be cured of that too, before getting desensitized to the joys of walking become one of the poorest British uni students, before getting used to that meet first love, before getting used to that finish degree, get good job and make the couple middle class, before getting used to that some relative she's never heard of before dies and makes them rich) I wonder if the number of levels possible is the only limit (before getting used to richness he becomes a king, before getting used to that both suddenly become able to fly like Superman, before getting used to that they become like gods...). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding heirs: Probably not really... People who inherit money do so from the people who had that money when they were children; thus they were raised and grew up in that social class; went to the right colleges, worked in fields commensurate to their social class. Billy Bob the dirt farmer doesn't really inherit 80 billion dollars from their long-lost uncle, at least not more often than he would win the state lottery. Instead, Johnny, who is raised by his billionaire parents (or, let's face it, their hired help), goes to school with other children of billionaire parents, works for the colleagues of their billionaire parents, hangs out with other people from billionaire families, and then when their dad dies inherits those billions. That's not "coming into significant money" except in a purely numerical measure. That's how the system works, and it does not cause significant changes to a person's means or social situation. --Jayron32 11:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Is becoming a trophy wife sudden enough to count as a sudden windfall? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Backyard of a nation[edit]

Latin America is the backyard of USA, Francophone Africa is France's backyard, Central Asia is Russia's and Southeast Asia is China's. What about Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, United Kingdom and Australia? These are major powers. Which region is their backyard? Donmust90 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about this terminology, but as an Australian, I'd say Australia's "backyard" wouldn't generally be the small Pacific island nations. Australia is generally "expected" to help when things go wrong there. For perhaps the most obvious example, consider the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, which was largely Australian. JackofOz, my fellow Aussie, what are your thoughts on this?
I'd say Saudi Arabia's backyard is the rest of the Arabian Peninsula: Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Especially Yemen. What else could it be? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Why is it not the Outback? Almost everyone lives in the front of Australia, near the coast and mostly only south Queensland to southeast SA or the southwest corner. If someone lives in the Outback their whole life maybe they don't see it as "out back" though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the always-correct internet, Australia's backyard stretches from the Pilbara in Western Australia, to Kakadu and Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, to Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, and as far east as French Polynesia, particularly Mururoa Atoll. It seems to be an ill-defined term. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are we assuming that the question is even meaningful? -- (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The more formal name is Sphere of influence -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Or possibly Satellite states. --Jayron32 13:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • can we say that the US is Canada’s back yard? Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    In terms of most objective social science measures,[1] Canada is certainly the more advanced society. I'd say the math checks out. --Jayron32 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ See Gini coefficient, on List of countries by income equality Canada ranked 13, US ranked 29, by Democracy Index, Canada 5, US 25, by Rule of Law index, Canada 12, US outside of top 20, etc.
  • More like the crazy old uncle we keep in the basement and avoid talking about [obligatory eh]. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

website that list which books are social or "soft" science fiction[edit]

Is there a website that shows a list of books that are categorized or considered as social of "soft" science fiction novels and which elements of social science do they involve in and as well as how are they considered as social science fiction in which way?Donmust90 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If "hard" science fiction is that which focuses on gadgets and physical-science theories to the detriment of character development and most other characteristics of good literature, then hard SF has been in decline since the days of Hugo Gernsback and "Skylark of Space", and most science-fiction these days is "soft". However, Soft science fiction does not necessarily mean that it explores social-science theories. Most tales of utopias and/or dystopias are in fact relevant to social sciences... AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article titled Soft science fiction both explains the concept and has a list of works. --Jayron32 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It's also an easy-to-make mistake (a form of category error?) to think that any work can necessarily be categorised as only "soft" or "social" or "hard" or "whatever" science fiction. In reality, a great many works contain elements of two or several such conceptual labels.
The same sort of over-analytical thinking results in the laughable metal music sub-genre wars where someone argues endlessly over which sub-genre a particular band "is" and even complains when the band produces music supposedly outside his/her chosen designation, forgetting (or not realising) that all such categories are merely a convenience, not a rule to be obeyed, and that any musician or group may produce anything they want to and over the course of a career (or even within a single album) will likely work in (or even invent) several different "genres." {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a long-standing debate in many fields over categorization. See Lumpers and splitters. --Jayron32 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Quite so. In some fields (e.g. Biology), it can be both useful and necessary to categorise things to some degree or another (and we can all argue about the degree), but in others, such as Music, it achieves little or nothing beyond satisfying a near-OCD obsession. What does it matter whether The Taphronic Vampire Gerbils' last album was more Symphonic Death Metal than Melodic Death Metal? The music is the music – just listen to it. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It does help people find music they may also like. If you like the band "Horned Toads", which is categorized as Danish Death Folk, and you find other bands also categorized as Danish Death Folk, you may find you like those as well. It's useful for those sorts of things. Where it isn't useful is in telling people they are wrong. Which is where people misuse such categorical systems. --Jayron32 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Knowing whether the music to be played at a concert is classified as Renaissance music or as new-age music provides me with a valued prediction regarding my expected enjoyment if attending. The distinction between "hard" SF and mushy SF has a similar value.  --Lambiam 12:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

January 29[edit]

Henrik Otto Donner's music for Howl[edit]

According to our article Howl "Part one of "Howl" was broadcast in Finland on September 30, 1969, on Yleisradio's (Finland's national public-broadcasting company) "parallel programme" at 10:30 p.m. The poem was read by three actors with jazz music specially composed for this radio broadcast by Henrik Otto Donner". Is the music available anywhere? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yle has the introduction by Kurt Nuotio and Otto Donner but not performance. Musicians were Esko Rosnell, Ilkka Willman and Juhani Aaltonen[9], they were Esko Rosnell Trio at the 1969 Pori Jazz Festival. According to[10] the recording may have been made at the festival, and Yle not making the recording available due to "copyright reasons". fiveby(zero) 05:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels' mother[edit]

As far as I could verify, she lived till 1953. But is there anything known about her life during the war, and her stance on Nazism – in particular, her son's prominent role within it?--Hildeoc (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Map of Historical French Provinces[edit]

Inside Wikipedia there are beautiful maps of historical French provinces in the same style, for example: Is there a big map encompassing all of them united together covering the entirety of France? Thank you! -- (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)