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

September 9[edit]

Multilingual (fr/it) WW1 postcard?[edit]

File:Guerre_14-18-Humour-L'ingordo,_trop_dur-1915.JPG is in use in the article Wilhelm II, German Emperor where it is claimed to be an Italian poster. The file description on Commons says it is a postcard from the French military propaganda. Which is it?

I also find it weird that the text uses two languages. L'ingordo is Italian for "the glutton", trop dur is French for "too hard", so it is not a translation; and although I am in no way an expert on WW1 history, I doubt the French would give a German foe an Italian nickname. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me more like a postcard than a poster, though the poor image quality doesn't help. The Italian text is largest, so probably it was mainly for the Italian market... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict, and no hard evidence, but ...) The caricaturist, Eugenio Colmo aka Golia is Italian and, from what I could tell, he worked in Italy for Italian publications during WWI. The Italian word "ingordo" was certainly less familiar or understandable to French people than "trop dur" was to Italians. French was still a widely understood language among educated people at the time, and "trop dur" is very close to the Italian "troppo duro". All this leads me to believe that it was originally published in Italy (whether as postcard or poster is another question). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I did find: "L'ingordo (...) a famous image of the Kaiser attempting to devour the world, was created by the Italian Eugenio Colmo (1855-1967) but arguably found its widest audience via mass-produced French postcards." (Richard Scully, "The 'Kaiser Cartoon', 1914-1918", in The Great War and the British Empire: Culture and society, Routledge Studies in First World War History, Taylor & Francis, 2016, ISBN 9781317029830) The same text also emphasizes that the Allies of WWI shared Kaiser cartoons among themselves, and that this was facilitated by "the unprecedented development of networks of communication and information that the war brought into play and that the industrialisation of printed media made possible." ---Sluzzelin talk 14:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Good job Sluzzelin - I edited the Commons description page to reflect this. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War Communists[edit]

Our Article on the SCW includes the paragraph "In the anarchist-controlled areas, Aragon and Catalonia, in addition to the temporary military success, there was a vast social revolution in which the workers and peasants collectivised land and industry and set up councils parallel to the paralyzed Republican government.[380] This revolution was opposed by the Soviet-supported communists who, perhaps surprisingly, campaigned against the loss of civil property rights."

Why? Why would the communists support civil property rights?

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Realpolitik ? In this case, meaning they didn't want to align themselves with what they worried would be the losing side, but would rather wait and see, then try to influence the winning side. The Soviets would be more interested in spreading their influence than their economic theory, keeping in mind that the Soviet Union wasn't really about equality for all, that's just what they told the peasants so the fat cats could have all the money and power they craved, and massacre their enemies with impunity. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
[citation needed]. I mean, no question Bolsheviks were bad guys, but fat cats could have all the money and power they craved, and massacre their enemies with impunity, like some sort of mafia, seriously??? Gem fr (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read The Great Terror (particularly its Reassessment second edition) by Robert Conquest, or even the transcript of Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" if you really doubt that this is the case. The idea that Stalin would abuse power for his own ends was foreseen by Lenin; see our article on Lenin's Testament. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
See Secret Speech. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Great Purge and Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin covers some of this. ("Excess mortality" is quite the euphemism for genocide, but I suppose they want it to sound neutral.) SinisterLefty (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Is that supposed to prove they were just mafia-like, without political goals? because, it does the very opposite. Gem fr (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
How so ? The murder, imprisonment, and torture of millions of common people obviously wasn't going to create the "workers paradise" they promised. On the other end, those in power had plenty of luxuries denied the commoners. I suggest reading Animal Farm, for an analogy on how it all went wrong. In Russia, once the Mensheviks were wiped out, there wasn't much hope of making life better for the peasants. For a closer approximation of a "workers paradise", I suggest looking at the Nordic nations, which paired a strong "welfare state" (here welfare means "for the welfare of all", not the program in the US for poor people only) with true democracy and respect for human rights. Take a look at the List of countries by Human Development Index to get an idea of which nations are getting it right (Russia is doing much better now than under Stalin). SinisterLefty (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
"obviously"? obviously, it was. Peasants are not "workers" the way Marx thought them, they had to give way to industry, metal working, machine building, etc.: made perfect communist sense to crush them, both to destroy the old world including killing reluctant people, and to muster ressource (food AND workforce) for the industrialization (including food production industrialization, a Sovkhoz being some sort of a plant) to build the new workers' paradise. Some mafia mob would just had ransacked every one, and that would have been it. Soviets applied Marx plan to enslave everyone (including the rulers, after all, they too were under threat to be purged, punished deported). I like Animal Farm, but he has it wrong: soviet ruler never turned into old-style ruler, as the final scene hints. And a chapter is missing : where Snowball/Trotsky tries to invade the neighbor farm, and gets kicked out. Gem fr (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Jee... the source seems to be Beevor (2006) The Battle for Spain, (BTW, the article makes a quite massive use of this source -- appears 116 time in the article. This may borderline plagiarism...). Anyway, our article on Beevor mentions he tapped on newly available Russian archives, this would be the track to follow to catch the real why. Now, looking at POUM article, you'll notice that Nin was detained and tortured to death by NKVD agents in Madrid, and his party consistently labeled as provocateur in Stalinist propaganda.. Likewise, you'll notice that post 1945 USSR taking over of East Europa was somewhat more subtile and more orderly (top-bottom, always controlled, with apparent legality) than the anarchists' ways. Soviets wanted to have firm grip first, then, and only then, have it their ways. So campaigning that anarchists have it really wrong, boo, bad guys, we Soviet will make it right, etc. (whatever works) makes perfect sense and is completely in line with the Soviets' ways. Gem fr (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We have an article, Anarchism in Spain, and in the Counter-revolution section, it says that the Soviet Communists equated anarchism with Trotskyism, for which there was little sympathy in the Kremlin. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I like your understatement little sympathy xD Gem fr (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
See English understatement - it's in the genes. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
If you get the chance, read Homage to Catalonia, which gives a first hand account of NKVD's suppression of the POUM. It also explains George Orwell's hatred of Soviet communism. Mikenorton (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Land reform in Spain (we need an article here!) goes back much further than the civil war period. It starts right back with the Peninsular War and does nothing substantial for a century, although the need for it is increasingly recognised. In much of Western Europe, Britain and Ireland are examples, this reform takes place in a fairly bloodless market-driven fashion after WWI, where the shortage of labour drives up wage costs in relation to land rents and makes the old estates unworkable. Even in Ireland, with this taking place during a civil war, the reforms come about as a consequence, rather than a driving force for the war.
In Spain, reforms begin under Azaña and the Second Republic. These are initially largely economic though, recognising the inefficiencies of the huge latifundia estates, just as a means of organising farming. Yet there is also still the risk of revolution and the rural population is disenfranchised and placed at risk by these estates: reform must go further or else there is a risk of a violent uprising to demand it. The first solid legal reforms have to advance this: the Law of Obligatory Cultivation stops the estate owners being able to turn production (and thus employment) on and off at whim, more as a control of a workforce than for agrarian reasons. Then the 1932 Agrarian Reform Law limits the size of large estates to 23 ha, or they can be purchased and redistributed by the state.[1] The reform law is powerful, but not widely implemented: there just isn't either the funds or the organisation to put it into effect. Only something like 10% of the potential new landowners are benefitted by it. However these reforms are enough to inspire a strongly reactionary element which will in turn become Franco's support.
During the civil war period, the Anarchist groups extended this land reform, although now with little or no compensation for the landowners and also with rather more compulsion to the peasant farmers. At a time when food distribution or sale after production was chaotic, this system often produced an unusable surplus of some crop, punctuated by gaps between crops and ongoing financial poverty. So, some improvement and scope for a long-term reform, but largely chaos in the present.
Communism, particularly in the 1930s Soviet form, takes issue with anarcho-syndicalism and the sort of property reform which was being experimented with in Spain. What it meant there wasn't against "private property" in a particularly broad sense, but really just these large agricultural estates. But these estates were made small and were intended to be largely self-sufficient with a small trade surplus, rather than being the economically trading monocultures which had previously profited the latifundias and had fed the cities. Communism liked these latifundia – they were similar to the structure of the idealised collective farms, they merely wished to change the ownership. A population of independent smallholders would be uncontrollable by a Communist state, and PCE and their Comintern masters wanted none of that! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A New Statesman article, Anarchists and Communists in Spain, quotes left-wing journalist and historian, H. N. Brailsford on the subject:
"To grasp this situation one must realise that the Communists now constitute the modern Centre Party in republican Spain. Their propaganda, as skilful as it is pervasive, is almost exclusively defensive. It focuses attention on resistance to Fascism and on a concentrated effort to win the war; it discourages talk about the future, and ridicules its allies’ weakness for “plans and projects”. I have before me a pamphlet by its secretary, Jose Diaz, which defines its objective as the creation of “a domestic and parliamentary republic of a new type.” The novelty of this conception is not easy to grasp, for Diaz goes on to insist that the chief task is to destroy the material foundations of Spanish feudalism – the vast aristocratic estates, the political and economic power of the Church, and the old army based on caste. Something is added, in much vaguer words, about the need for breaking up the financial oligarchy and nationalising the Bank of Spain, but it is obvious that industry will be socialised, if at all, only partially and with extreme caution. The enemy, in short, is feudalism and less certainly big business, but small property, whether in town or country, need have no fear.
"I just discussed this policy with several leading Communists. They justified it mainly on two grounds. Spain is a land of peasants, who own their few acres, save in the south and west, where the great estates predominate. They cannot be driven forcibly to to accept socialisation – an experiment which the Anarchists have tried in Aragon with disastrous results. Again, the support of the small middle class is essential, if the war is to be won. In fact, the country was very evenly divided by the test of votes in February, 1936; the Republic dare not throw away potential support from any quarter. Secondly, it dare not antagonise the Western democracies by unfurling the flag of proletarian revolution. This had the ring of everyday common sense, though I reflected that Lenin brushed aside very similar arguments in 1917".
Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is es:Ley de Reforma Agraria de España de 1932.
I don't have a reference but I remember reading that, in some phase of the war, the PCE was the party of law and order, joined by many who were not communists but republicans wanting an efficient running of the republic and the war.
As for Communists and small peasants, land reform in Poland after the war created a lot of Polish smallholders at the expense of earlier German holders. I think that collectivization never went far in Communist countries except in the Soviet territory.
--Error (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Without going through all the debate above, the notion that the Spanish revolution was betrayed from within by PCE constitutes an essential Dolchstoßlegende of the modern left. The myth about the war has little to do with the war itself, but corresponds to what people want it to represent. --Soman (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's no myth that Stalin considered it a higher priority for the Russian presence in Spain to help the NKVD purge Trotskyists and Anarchists, instead of maintaining the effective fighting ability of the Republican military forces. It's also no myth that Spain's central gold reserves disappeared from Madrid and showed up in Moscow... AnonMoos (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The "instead" is the part of the myth, as is the notion that internal struggles (which surely did not help) were to be blamed on PCE alone. And so is Moscow gold "disappearance" (see article). Gem fr (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure that Stalin considered maintaining the effective fighting ability of the Republican military forces to be a somewhat worthy goal. However, he considered it more important that purges of Trotskyites and Anarchists be conducted in Spain under NKVD supervision. That's what "higher priority" means. And the "Moscow gold" article you linked to doesn't say that the transfer was mythical, only that some views about it are a simplified version of a more complex reality (something which applies to most historical events that aren't completely forgotten by the public). The name of the article ("Moscow gold") is a little strange, since in the English language "Moscow gold" usually refers to gold supposedly smuggled out of Petrograd, or later Moscow, to support subversion by the various local communist parties around the world. That type of Moscow gold is in fact semi-mythical (as opposed to the gold taken from Spain to the Soviet Union, which is quite historical)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It can be argued that Trotskyites and Anarchists actually undermined the Republican military forces, preventing the building of some really effective army: Moscow remembered that the Red Army was ineffective until Trotskytransformed the Red Army from a ragtag network of small and fiercely independent detachments into a large and disciplined military machine, through forced conscription, party-controlled blocking squads, compulsory obedience and officers chosen by the leadership instead of the rank and file, and for this, Trotskyites and Anarchists had to be melted down.
I agree with you that Moscow gold is not a proper title for the Spanish Moscow gold, like yourself I understand Moscow gold as the just as historical, but surrendered by fog and mystery and myth suitable for secret services, money that the NKVD/KGB (but also East Germany STASI etc.) used to support communist and para-communist organizations around the world Gem fr (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Trotsky became a real general during the Russian civil war fighting. Stalin's military prowess is much more questionable. Certainly his purges of the Soviet Army in the 1930s did nothing to strengthen it, as revealed in the fighting of the Winter War. And Stalin seemed to do everything in his power to make the initial German attacks against the Soviet Union as big a success as possible, refusing to listen to any of his spies who warned about a German attack, refusing to redeploy Soviet troops to a better defensive posture, and suffering some kind of mysterious nervous breakdown in the week after the first attack, which left his subordinates issuing all the orders. I know of no evidence that Stalin's NKVD-supervised purges in Spain did much to increase to increase Republican military effectiveness -- and even if they had achieved this goal, that would have meant that non-Franco Spain would have ended up as a Stalinist secret-police state... AnonMoos (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, like Hitler, he wasn't competent, but his generals were. However, unlike Hitler, who relied on his generals and admirals more at the beginning of the war, and later took direct control, with disastrous results, Stalin gave more control to the generals later, with better results. SinisterLefty (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Another film marquee[edit]

Blacksburg, Virginia, 7 November 2010

Marquee inscription:

     NOV 5  7-11

The last line is The Social Network, and I assume "Next" refers to the date given earlier in the line, but what about Saviors in the Night? Google gives me information about a 2009 film of this name (its summary: Marga Spiegel describes how courageous farmers in southern Munsterland hid her family from Nazis), both under this title and Unter Bauern (see IMDB), but I can't find an article about it. Do we really have no article? It seems that we have articles for every other feature film released in the US, so I'd be surprised if this one doesn't have an article. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The photo shows NEXT on a line by itself. I've edited Nyttend's transcription to match. This is irrelevant to the question, of course. -- (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
At this moment, it looks like we only have it as Marga on French Wikipedia and Unter Bauern – Retter in der Nacht on German Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has an article on Marga Spiegel where the film is red-linked too. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The photo hanging in the display case to the right of the movie's entrance ("NOW SHOWING") looks like it's this production still from the movie, so I'm pretty sure you have the right film. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A division in Cabinet - Gladstone, Campbell-Bannerman, and Juvenal[edit]

In H. H. Asquith's The Genesis of the War, we read (in a footnote on page 19 of the George H. Doran edition) "I remember in Mr. Gladstone's cabinet of 1892-94, which contained a number of excellent scholars, a division being suggested—I think by Lord Rosebery—on the correctness of a quotation from Juvenal, which was keenly disputed between the Prime Minister and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The matter was happily settled by the production of the text: Sir Henry proved to be right." Do we know what the quotation was, and how did the GOM misquote it? Bonus marks for the context - what were the Cabinet discussing that brought the matter up in the first place? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No luck yet - no Hansard results for "Juvenal" for the time period. Same incident with similar description is mentioned in the Spectator of 13 Nov. 1913 - so also no details, though before Asquith's book. "He was so well read in the classics that he could hold his own in Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, and on one occasion proved right in his reading of a line of Juvenal when all the other big classical guns—including Mr. Asquith—were wrong." (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

On the frame enclosing the list of impending executions I got inscribed the line of Juvenal—

"Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est"

which was a Roman husband's counsel to his ill-tempered wife when she wanted to crucify a slave off-hand.

Juvenal's line is followed by another one, which is much better known and is not infrequently misquoted, and thereby hangs the story of a dissension in Cabinet. "Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione volontas" said Campbell- Bannerman when, after long discussion, a Cabinet decision was reached. Rosebery suggested that the quotation was inaccurate and that "stet" should be substituted for "sit". A copy of the Satires of Juvenal was sent for and C.-B. turned out to be right. So Asquith told me, and he added that Rosebery covered his retreat by observing that he was sorry that C.-B. showed so accurate a memory about a Satire which schoolboys are not allowed to read! This sort of interlude does not occur in Cabinets nowadays.

Simon, John Allsebrook.(1952) Retrospect : the memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Viscount Simon. London. pp. 208-9. The first line Simon translates as "You can never hesitate too long before deciding that a man must die" and the one in contention as "That I wish, and thus I order—my wish is reason enough".—eric 12:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah thank you! Kipling misquotes it similarly in The Light That Failed. I suppose I should read Simon's Retrospect, but I'm not sure I can bear to have him in the house. Was there perhaps an edition of Juvenal with it incorrectly printed, that Kipling and Roseberry (or Gladstone) could both have been familiar with? DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
One minor quibble - volontas is an Esperanto word which means "volunteer". As stated, there are many misquotations of this phrase, e.g. Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas but they all involve the replacement of one Latin word with another. I doubt that volontas would have got past Campbell-Bannerman. 2A00:23C5:E111:C500:F14D:BCE6:4914:6211 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 10[edit]

Painting identification[edit]

This painting seems to be public domain, and easily shows in image searches for "Ave Maria". One source says the painting is titled "Ave Maria, Gratia Plena", 16th century, but does not state who is the painter. Is the painter of this art piece known? --IvanStepaniuk (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a zoom of a bigger annunciation painting or fresco, used as cover image for a Schubert's Ave Maria recording. If so, the original record would give credit. BTW there are tons of these: pretty much every catholic church has an annunciation picture, not always with author name. Gem fr (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I searched in TinEye for the oldest uses of the image that it knew about, and one hit was interesting: it was apparently used as a front-cover illustration for volume 1 of a Polish-language edition of The Poem of the Man-God. (This page in Polish seems, based on what I see in Google Translate, to be a table of contents of each volume.) But that does not help at all in telling where the image comes from! -- (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
good find. I tried to find the book in googlebooks, since the practice is to credit the image used on the cover, but I failed. Gem fr (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
If that's the oldest occurrence, it's possible it is not as old as it seems, but rather is a modern image, made in that style, perhaps using a similar image as a model, like this one: [2]. It being reused so many times also implies that it isn't copyrighted. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it was the oldest, just one of the oldest that TinEye produced. At most that measures how long it's been on the Net. Also, being reused many times doesn't imply that there is no copyright, only that there's none that anyone is successfully enforcing. -- (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 11[edit]

A monk's footsteps[edit]

On p. 91 of Michel Benoît's (no article) novel The Thirteenth Apostle I read this:

  • A monk's footsteps can be recognised from those of a thousand others: he never attacks the ground with his heel, but slides his foot forward and seems to be walking on a cushion of air.

This has the ring of truth to me. It's unlikely to be something a novelist would just make up, because if it were not true, it would attract negative criticism. But most germanely, the author was a monk himself for 20 years and would know whereof he speaks. But it's proven difficult to research or confirm. I get lots of ghits about people doing pilgrimages "in the footsteps of the monks" etc. And apparently Monks is a brand of shoes. Where can one read more about this practice? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a common phenomenon among all people who normally walk barefoot, not just monks. The article on barefoot mentions it in the subsection "Health implications" and links to the article You Walk Wrong by Adam Sternbergh. (Though monks aren't mentioned there). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
And the section "Hiking" says "People of all ages all over the world can participate in barefoot hiking, gathering for walks through forest and hiking trails sans footwear. Barefoot hikers claim that they feel a sense of communion with the earth and enjoy the sheer pleasure of feeling more of the world with their feet." Bus stop (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Getting stung or bitten on the soles of the feet will certainly make one feel closer to nature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that Jack didn't mention barefoot, and of course not all monks walk barefoot (see the article on discalced). If this is indeed just supposed to be a "monk" thing, irrespective of footwear, then I have no answer. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I walk like that quite consciously, sometimes, to reduce the impact of the heel on the ground (that is, of the ground ON the heel and up, because, reaction). The impact is more of a problem when being barefoot, or wearing bad footwear like primitive sandals (which protect the skin, but let you feel the shock), the kind of thing a monk does wear. Gem fr (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I accept the ability of the former monk to comment knowledgeably about something they were immersed in for 20 years but I nevertheless take issue with the notion that "It's unlikely to be something a novelist would just make up, because if it were not true, it would attract negative criticism." Testing the limits of credibility is not something a novelist would not do. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
According to a YouTube video I watched a few years ago, one of a series about ordinary life in Mediaeval Europe made by a re-enactor (sorry I can't now find a link to it), most people in that period, particularly peasants, wore soft-soled footware and consequently walked in the manner described above. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Back then, many peasants were barefoot, both because they were dirt poor and because shoes were very expensive, requiring many man-days to be hand-made by a leather tanner and cobbler (and a spinner for the thread, and maybe a blacksmith for nails). SinisterLefty (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Back then, many would have worn clogs. They (dutch style at least) are made of 100% willow or poplar wood, which was very cheap (because fast-growing on the same types of soil that are good for farming). Dutch wiki claims that an experienced clogmaker can make a pair in an hour using simple tools, so they would have been affordable. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This image shows a monk wearing sandals, but the dancing nun is barefoot. In this picture, Jesus is barefoot, but the monk has some nice shoes. St, Benedict and his chums appear to be wearing shoes, but it's hard to tell exactly. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Railway construction in Japan[edit]

Does the Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency carry out any of its own works or do they contract everything out to external contractors? Clover345 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "carry out any of its own works". What they contract out is not their "own work", is it? The agency also has a mission to control several subsidiaries and has a workforce of 職員1,595名: this is enough for the decision making, planning, financing, engineering, controlling etc., but leave few to actually build lines, if this is what you mean; besides, AFAIK the Japanese agencies practice is to contract out. Gem fr (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 12[edit]

Abbreviation EU-OSHA[edit]

Why does the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work use the abbreviation EU-OSHA? It's hard to find an explanation on the web, but it seems obvious that the abbreviation was chosen in analogy to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But when you use a different name, why take the same, unsuitable abbreviation? Is there another explanation? The French name doesn't fit either. Are there other examples of EU institution copying the abbreviation of the American example, although it doesn't fit? --KnightMove (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It stands for Occupational Safety and Health Agency (not administration) source source OSH appears to be a standard abbreviation in many countries, not a specifically American one. (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-territorial minorities that subsequently became territorial majorities[edit]

Sikhs as percentage of total population in different districts of India (data from the 2011 Census).
LDS (Mormon) percentage of US population by county in 2000.

Which non-territorial minorities subsequently became territorial majorities? As in, which minorities (whether ethnic, religious, or something else) were initially scattered across a bunch of territories but subsequently moved en masse to a particular viable, contiguous territory and were thus able to become a majority of the total population in this territory? So far, I could think of:

  • Jews. They were initially scattered throughout the world but due to a lot of them moving to Palestine/Israel over the last 100 years, they were able to form a majority of the total population in (most of) Israel.
  • Sikhs. They were scattered throughout Punjab but as a result of the partition of India and the subsequent mass migration of the Sikhs in western Punjab to eastern Punjab, Sikhs were able to form a majority of the total population in eastern Punjab.
  • Mormons. They were initially a non-territorial minority, but after their subsequent move to Utah (and some nearby territories, such as parts of southeastern Idaho), they were able to form a majority of the total population there and thus became a territorial majority.

Anyway, what additional examples of non-territorial minorities becoming territorial minorities am I forgetting to list here? Futurist110 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There are some problems with trying to answer. First, many ethnic and religious minorities have gone through cycles of having a homeland, losing it, regaining it again, etc. In the case of the Jews, for example, there was Judea and Ancient Israel. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there was, but that was 2,000 years ago. Futurist110 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, if you look at a small enough territory, like one town, then just about any minority can have a majority there, such as the Oneida Community. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, certainly! I know that Jews were a majority of the total population in some Eastern European cities and towns before the Holocaust. For instance, Grodno. That said, though, I'm looking for territories that are larger than a mere city is. In other words, I want territories that are capable of (theoretically) becoming viable states. Futurist110 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Cities can become viable states. We have several modern city-states, such as Singapore. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
That's actually a fair point, though I would prefer the relevant territory (potential state) to be as large as possible. Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't the last word of the title and 3rd bullet be changed to "majorities" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that it should be. Futurist110 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I fixed both. SinisterLefty (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
...and the last word of the first sentence? DroneB (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. I fixed that one, too. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you are up, but USSR is involved in quite a few population movements that changed the ethnic balance of a number of place. Just for instance German, Königsberg became Russian Kaliningrad (at the same time, East Prussia turned Polish; while I guess this may not be what you mean, it DID involve Polish people coming to inhabit there). Gem fr (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I want cases where a population didn't have any or much territory where it formed a majority of the total population and later formed such a majority in a particular territory as a result of mass migration. Your examples of Kaliningrad and the Recovered Territories don't really work for this since Russians and Poles both had plenty of territories where they were a majority of the total population even before they settled en masse in Kaliningrad and the Recovered Territories. In contrast, with the exception of some Eastern European cities (that are very small in territory), Jews had no territories where they were a majority of the total population until they moved en masse to Palestine/Israel over the last 100 years. Futurist110 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinos pants[edit]

I'm looking for sources about chinos pants. It seems surprisingly difficult to find something that gives a good overview. Any advice is appreciated. Benjamin (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC),,, Chino cloth. I would guess the problem is that you searched under just "chinos" and were swamped by sites selling them. I searched for "history of chinos" to get better hits. SinisterLefty (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

value of a currency note[edit]

If the value of currency notes of South Asian country falls compared to Dollar, then what are the reasons behind this?

There are some European countries which are clean, but they don't have large cities and industries like some developing Asian countries, yet their currency Euro has greater value than industrialized Asian countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сила тигра (talkcontribs) 08:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many reasons for currency exchange rates to change. There's the relative strength of the economies, the political stability of the nations, possible currency manipulation, etc. Also note that some economies have largely moved beyond industrialization into a service economy. For example, they can export "information", in the broadest sense, such as entertainment (sports, movies, TV shoes, video games). They can also design equipment, medication, products, etc., which is manufactured elsewhere. Also note that being "clean" can increase tourism, which in turn brings in foreign currency and changes the exchange rate. SinisterLefty (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Relevant articles include Exchange rate and Currency appreciation and depreciation. Bear in mind that currencies did not all start from the same time on a "level footing" – there is no particular meaning in their relative numerical values, but rather in the changes of those values. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Note that the value per se of a currency doesn't matter. When the Euro was introduced, the value of money changed in each country, was divided by ~2.5 in Malta, and multiplied by ~2000 in Italy; and the prices moved opposite (x2.5 in Malta, divided by 2000 in Italy), so basically nothing changed but the standard, pretty much like during a switch from miles to kilometers the distances keep the same but the representative numbers are x1.6 . Japan has a solid economy with a Yen worth ~1/100 of a US Dollar, you just need JPY 100 to buy USD 1 worth of goods; you have to check purchasing power parity. Gem fr (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually a common complaint in countries that changed to euro from a currency of smaller nominal value is that retailers used the switch to create an invisible price hike. (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
If your currency falls in value relative to others, the effect is to make imports more expensive and exports cheaper. This reduces demand for foreign goods at home, and makes your produce more saleable abroad. Countries sometimes deliberately devalue their own currency to promote their economy in that way. It's not a good policy if your country is dependant on imports (oil for example) in order to make a living. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
BUT. This is true for inflation 0%. A rare situation. More often, inflation will make home goods more expensive, offsetting the import/export effect you mention. Besides, you may find foreigners eager to buy capital assets (land, corporations...) in your country instead of the good produced by these corporations, because they would be cheaper to buy with their more valuable currency, which you may (or not) be pleased of. Then again, you have to check purchasing power parity. Gem fr (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
All good answers, although I would point out to user:Gem fr that the difference between the rate of devaluation and the rate of domestic inflation is the key to local competitiveness. A 10% devaluation (or 10% deflation, i.e., a decline over a somewhat longer period of time) accompanied by a 2% rise in inflation isn’t likely to undermine domestic competitiveness. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

"Area Engineered"[edit]

What does the phrase "area engineered" refer to in this advertisement? That wording appears twice in that advertisement. In one instance that wording is superimposed on a hand with an index finger pointed down at concentric circles. This would seem to offer a clue, but I can't figure it out. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing "area" means "our own local area", i.e. in this case greater New York. You used to see the word used that way in headlines ("Area man killed in car crash", meaning someone from the local area), so it's not surprising to see it copied into ads. In other words, the TV set was designed by people from greater New York. Even today, if Wikipedia is correct, the Emerson Radio company is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey. -- (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It's funny that they said they couldn't list the price "because it's so low", then gave us clues to figure it out (35 cents a day for 18 months). That's $192, or $1858 adjusted for inflation, plus the deposit. Was that cheap for a 20 inch black and white TV, with only a 5 day guarantee, at the time ? SinisterLefty (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
1952 was around the time that TV stopped being a semi-experimental technology under development (some early TV sets had small screens with magnifying glasses in front of them!) and started becoming a normal fixture in the living rooms of middle-class homes. AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it may mean something like "locally manufactured". And it now occurs to me me that the pointing finger may be comparable to a "You are here" on a map. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The concentric ellipses are adorned with a wave, which imho damages the geographic interpretation. —Tamfang (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, Tamfang, that the concentric ellipses seem to be adorned with a wave, which would seem to support the "good reception" interpretation of the phrase "area engineered". I think signals are propagated in waves. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
+1 . If this is not the correct interpretation, I am just another fooled. Gem fr (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility: "area engineered" means there's not just one place in the room where you get a good view of this TV's image; it is designed for the whole area where viewers might sit. —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Or that it's engineered to work specifically in the New York/New Jersey area where it is sold. However, the place you use it (either within a house or in the world) would dictate the type of antenna, not the TV itself. Of course, they could still make the false claim that those TVs are somehow better at picking up signals in that area. The claim could actually mean the TV only comes with rabbit ears, since that New York/New Jersey area is relatively flat and densely populated, so many TV signals probably get through with a minimal antenna. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility I consider is that "area engineered" is meant to imply "good reception". "Reception can also refer to the quality of a broadcast signal, as received by a TV or radio."[3] Of course the advertisement is not saying what makes this possible. Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"George and Gladstone" - Lloyd George campaign song[edit]

In Cregier, Don M. (1976). "Poacher's Lawyer, 1884-1890". Bounder from Wales: Lloyd George's Career before the First World War. Columbia & London: University of Missouri Press. p. 35-36. ISBN 0-8262-0203-9. we read "Lloyd George had his own campaign song, "George and Gladstone," whose lyrics were composed in Welsh and English by the versatile candidate himself to the tune of "Marching Through Georgia." This and more scurrilous Welsh songs were belted out by gangs of Liberal toughs to disrupt Conservative rallies, while the Tories resorted to the traditional methods of intimidation, no longer as effective as in the old days". I would very much like to know the lyrics to "George and Gladstone", thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying question - is this different from The Land (song), which is also to the Marching Through Georgia tune and also originated in a Lloyd George campaign? Its author is unknown, however.[4] (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Same tune, different words as far as I can make out. The election campaign Don Cregier is writing about was in 1890, The Land' as a Liberal anthem dates from around the time of the People's Budget (1909), and the two general elections which followed, as the article you linked says. Marching Through Georgia itself has an obvious appeal to Liberals like Lloyd George who revered the memory of Abraham Lincoln and the Union's victory in the American Civil War, and while I have no citation for it, I strongly suspect he would have been familiar with the tune as played by the brass bands that flourished in Britain at the time. In 1890 although Lloyd George was already familiar with Georgist land tax ideas, he wasn't campaigning for them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Alas, that song is mucking up the search results a bit. I have found one reference which, although it doesn't give the lyrics, says that they were all in Welsh except the line "George and Gladstone", which was the last line. There was one song of which, being in Welsh, I did not, of course, understand a word, except the finale which was always "George and Gladstone," sung with tremendous emphasis and which rang in my head for days and days afterwards. (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I see now that that is in fact used by Cregier as one of his sources! It strikes me on reading it that the finale could well be "Lloyd George and Gladstone", which would fit the metre and Lawson may not have recognised the Welsh pronunciation of Lloyd. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Frank Owen, Tempestuous journey: Lloyd George, his life and times (New York 1955) says on p. 71:

Lustily they bellowed (to the tune of "Marching Through Georgia") the Lloyd George Battle Song: "Hurrah!

"Hurrah, hurrah" are the first words of the first two lines of the original chorus. 2A00:23C4:7998:4600:B144:CFBA:2A08:B37D (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that! That's from the 1892 election. Fuller quote from Frank Owen:

Hurrah! Hurrah! We're ready for the fray!
Hurrah! Hurrah! We'll drive Sir John away!
The "Grand Young Man" will triumph,
Lloyd George will win the day

So it looks like he reused it suitably adapted. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
And "Lloyd George Battle Song" led me to this in The War After the War by Isaac Frederick Marcosson: "An ardent Home Ruler, he swayed his followers with such intensity that what came to be known as Lloyd George's Battle Song sprang into being. Sung to the American tune of "Marching Through Georgia" it was hailed as the fighting hymn of Welsh Nationalism. Two lines show where the young Welsh lawyer stood in his early twenties: they also point his whole future:
"The Grand Young Man will triumph,
Lloyd George will win the day!" DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Toilet provision planning[edit]

How many times do 200 average adults use a toilet over a 5 hour period between breakfast and lunchtime? How many toilets need to be available? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know about frequency of use or about "between breakfast and lunchtime", but you might find some pointers in work safety rules that specify how many toilets a workplace needs to provide depending on workforce size. For instance, a German rule [5] demands a minimum of between 10 and 17 toilets for a workforce of 200, depending on whether people are free to use them across all parts of the workday or whether demand will concentrate on certain intervals only. Fut.Perf. 12:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, by "between breakfast and lunchtime" I mean that neither meal will be served at the venue. People will arrive after having breakfast and leave to have lunch elsewhere. I've been asked to help plan a morning outdoor event, and sanitation landed up on my to-do list. In my (personal) experience toilet use peaks at mealtimes, so that should have an effect on demand. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Use should actually peak a bit after mealtimes, which means you should be sure to have all the toilets ready to use at the start of the event, with use tapering off later. Also note that if you serve beverages or have water available (and you really should for a 5 hour event), then more toilets will be needed, for urination. If you intend to have gender-specific toilets, then you may also need to consider that it takes women longer to urinate than men, and you may also want to provide a separate "powder room" for people to check hair, make-up and such, so they don't block toilet access while doing so. A simple mirror would suffice, although adding a sink would be better. Windy or sweaty conditions make this more of an issue. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This Event Toilet Calculator, devised by a toilet hire company, suggests 2 toilets for 200 during a 6 hour period. Seems rather on the low side, but then again, a hire company is not going to tell you that you need less than is necessary. This one also suggests only 2 toilets. Alansplodge (talk)
Thanks all, we've decided to go with two for each gender and one non-gendered for people with mobility impairments. Too few would be a disaster while too many is merely a minor cost issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Portrait of Lloyd George by W. H. Caffyn[edit]

My copy of Evans, Beriah. The Life Romance of Lloyd George. London: Everyman. lacks the cover portrait of David Lloyd George by W. H. Caffyn which it originally enjoyed. I have been unable to find an image of the portrait, or indeed much about Caffyn (though he seems to have produced recruitment posters in the First World War). Can anyone help please? DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Could this be it? [6] It's crooked so I'm wondering if its not an actual frontspiece but the cover portrait cut out and glued inside the book. Is there a frontspiece in your own copy? (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
That looks like the 1911 portrait of Lloyd George in his robes as Chancellor of the Exchequer by Christopher Williams. My copy of Evans does not have a frontispiece. DuncanHill (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Though hang on, what my copy actually says is "A lithographic reproduction, size 20x15 (by Mr W. H. Caffyn), of the portrait of Mr. Lloyd George which appears on the cover of this book can be obtained at all booksellers and Art Dealers at 1s. net, or on superior paper (mounted on linen) signed by the Artist-lithographer at 5s. net. Copies can also be obtained direct from EVERYMAN, 11 Warwick Lane, at 1s. 3d. or 5s. 3d. post free". So it is possible the portrait is by someone other than Caffyn, but I read "the Artist-lithographer" to mean that Caffyn was both. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The copy linked above has an ex-libris plate for the University of Toronto. The digitised copy at Hathi Trust has the same portrait (also slightly askew) but is stamped "Library of the Union Theological College New York", so this must be the correct frontispiece. Alansplodge (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall send off my 5 and thruppence forthwith! DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


I am please looking for episodes 1 through X, of the show in the link above which features episode 6. Thank you.

Edit conflict. I am not able to post yhe linknto Youtube as this is blacklist ed apparently... The irony. Please delete yhe spaces here... https:// /wJ1uo5 jvpe8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14[edit]


Low culture and high culture are class based distinctions of culture but when it says culture is the social behavior and norms found in human societies are they including or excluding low culture and high culture or are they saying only clothing, cooking, ritual, art, music, dance and science etc is culture? I could be wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:D052:F548:73F0:75AF (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

See earlier question and the answers. DroneB (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
One problem is that meaning of “culture” can shift depending on context... anthropologists may use one definition while journalists may use another. So we would need to clarify the context to answer your question. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Gem fr (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well what's the anthropology perspective and journal perspectives on context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:454F:6890:28CE:FF0C (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Both anthropologists and journalist discourage trolling. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Material culture[edit]

Are board games material culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

According to anthropologists, yes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Speaker Explains[edit]

Hi! I'm curious. Are these videos recordings of parliamentary proceedings? Why?--Roy17 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Why are they or are they not?--Roy17 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No. The link is to 5 videos in which John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, sitting by a fireplace, explains procedures. DroneB (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Does "Why?" mean "Why would they record that?" or something else ? SinisterLefty (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

opium addiction in 19th century US?[edit]

I half-remember characters in Mark Twain novels treating various ailments with laudanum, which according to the article was available without a prescription until around 1906. Was there a significant problem with addiction before that? I'm aware of the opium wars between GB and China in the 18th century and there was apparently considerable addiction in China. It seems logical that if the stuff was so easily available in the US, there would be addiction here as well, but we don't hear about it much. Is it a brushed-aside bit of history, or what? (Of course there were also even worse problems like slavery, but that's separate). (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks promising as a source: Inside the Story of America’s 19th-Century Opiate Addiction, and this study of the language used over the centuries to describe addiction may also suggest some good keywords to try while searching for historical accounts. (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a sad truth that many of the drug prohibitions in the U.S. were passed during kind of racist panics -- opium/heroin during an early 20th-century anti-Chinese "yellow peril" phase, marijuana during an anti-black phase. Harry J. Anslinger was the U.S. anti-drug czar for many years. He came after the original outlawing of opium, but was very much involved in the outlawing of marijuana... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
How addictive a substance is depends on it's purity. However, I'm not sure how pure opium was in the US then. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It also depends on the individual user. A Feature Article in the current issue of New Scientist dealing with the causes of addiction (No. 3247, 14 September 2019, p42 'Is it really addiction?', Moya Sarner) asserts that about 15–20% of people have a predeliction for addictions (to both substances and behaviours like obsessive use of pornography or playing of video games), due to an excess of the neurotransmitter GABA in the amygdala, probably due to a lack of a chemical GAT-3 which clears excess GABA, seemingly associated with a varient of the DRD2 gene. The other 80–85%, by implication, are much less likely to become addicts of anything even if exposed to it.
If this is the case, then in a population with unrestricted access to a given addictive substance, up to 15% or so may form an addiction, but if the addictive substance does not cause immediate major health problems and is freely available, cheap and legal, most users may still be able to function in society. Laudanum was extensively (and legally) used/administered in Victorian Britain by people of all ages (it was used to passify babies) without people of the time noticing a major problem (growing objections were, I suspect, based on 'moral' grounds). Heroin was available on prescription to registered addicts in Britain in my lifetime and most were able to thus control their addiction and function. Many of the problems of addiction to substances that have been made illegal arise from having to use contaminated versions (more deleterious to health) supplied by criminals at high prices that necessitate turning to crime in order to pay for them. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all. The question was inspired partly by the current US opiate crisis which has caused a lot of fatalities. I don't think impurities in the drugs has been an issue. I wondered if there was a comparable situation pre-1900. (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I want to make sure you understand what I mean by "purity". I mean the concentration of the active ingredient(s. Modern drugs tend to have a lot more of that and less of the inactive ingredients. Those inactive ingredients limit the rate at which a person can consume the drug. For example, some alcohol is common in over-ripe fruit, but you wouldn't be able to get very drunk on them, because you would have to eat massive quantities. But if you distill the alcohol to increase the concentration, then you can get drunk and develop alcoholism. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


I had a shower thought the other day that maybe dreams are just the experiences of our alternate selves in various dimensions/multiverses. It would explain why were always actors in our dreams and why we never die. Is this idea a thing in theories about why we dream? Thanks —Andrew 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You might want to review Dream. Be aware that animals dream also. And how do you know we never die? Maybe the ones who do, don't live to tell about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

Why do they pick those Iowa caucus dates?[edit]

Why isn't it the same week or month every year? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not held every year. And the caucus/primary calendar is the result of a lot of jostling back and forth between the states and parties. Various states which want to have more influence on the process often move their primaries earlier. Iowa is guaranteed to be the earliest delegate-selection event, and New Hampshire to be the first primary election, so they have to be earlier than any other state's primary. Then every so often, people complain that the nomination process is becoming ridiculously long and/or early, so everything is pushed back... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the name of fallacy where you over-include a person's argument?[edit]

Take this Bible verse for example on 'homosexuality' --> "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, [...]." And then Christians view that as the Bible condemns homosexuality. Well guess what, the Bible didn't say "when a woman lies with another woman" only man-on-man. And the definition of homosexuality goes both genders. So the Bible only specifically condemns man-on-man homosexuality and not woman-on-woman. So when a Christian argues the Bible condemns "homosexuality" they actually inflate the definition to include woman-on-woman. What would you call this kind of fallacy, where someone takes your argument to include another argument? Not calling this a strawman argument where they change your argument (completely), but they added on your argument to include something else. (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Faulty generalization may be the answer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a matter of making assumptions. Assumptions can be defensible or indefensible. In my opinion you can't say that the example you have given constitutes a "fallacy". A supporting argument may render the assertion not a fallacy at all. Or the supporting argument can be weak and the extension of males to include females in the referred-to prohibition can concluded to be indefensible. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention the assumption that men only sin with a male if they do it lying down.--Shantavira|feed me 15:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"If a man lies with a man as with a woman" always confused me. Is this assuming that men and women have oral and anal sex ? That doesn't seem likely, as sex was supposed to be only for reproductive purposes in the Bible. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
What Talmud say yo? Though that's only Scripture if you're orthodox. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The you may have no fun, have sex only for reproductive purpose always seemed a stretch to me. After all, There is a whole book in the Bible dedicated to life pleasures, women included (just ask Solomon). Methink the correct interpretation would be "have fun with sex, all the more so when reproduction ensue". Gem fr (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point. The Bible actually is the opinions of many different authors, all cobbled together and claimed to be the word of God, which of course is nonsense, because God wouldn't constantly change his mind about everything, unless God is a woman. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Some Jewish Rabbis have come to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible does not prohibit lesbian sex. Christians are not quite in the same position because of the New Testament verse Romans 1:26. The overall fallacy is probably Faulty generalization... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice that the fallacy was already named above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We have articles on a number of non-procreative / non-penetrative sexual Biblical activities:

  • Genesis, method of abiogenesis unknown > expelled from Paradise
  • Onan, coitus interuptus > executed by God
  • most likely, quite a few more.
  • Forunatley (or not), Homo Sapiens survives while whilst God † is extinct.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

God is not dead, He's just not feeling very well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, I still think the answer is some type of strawman fallacy. If the strawman fallacy is "I argued A, he changed my argument to B," my above example is "I argued A, he changed my argument to A and B, but I did not say B." (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

No, a strawman is a (false) argument to (claim to) destroy another argument. No such thing here. Gem fr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
How does what you say contradict what I say? (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't see the argument to be destroyed, nor the strawman argument destroyed instead. Unless you make the initial claim "woman-on-woman is Bible-OK", in which case the conter-argument "look at {this verse, which actually only mention man-on-man}, it is not" would indeed be a strawman, but that is not the way you asked, is it? Gem fr (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay wow, we're not even on the same page here. I said my definition of a strawman is "I argued A, he changed my argument to B (and therefore argued against B)." Is that not what a straw man is? (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
see Straw man#Structure. Your definition seems close enough to the more usual "I argued A, he argued against easily defeated B as if A=B then claimed to have destroyed A" (for instance because B is exaggerated A, so winning against B do not mean you defeated A). Now, what I don't see is how this relates to the question you asked, which was "they have a text about men, and they claim it applies to men and women alike, this is a fallacy, what is the name of it?". My answer (for what it is worth) was: this looks like inference (or, better yet, inductive reasoning), it may or may not be a fallacy depending on the matter (for instance : men are mortel, men are human beings, so human beings -- women included -- are mortal. This is valid) . I can add: a strawman would be "they quote a verse where men only are mentioned, so women are exempted"; that would be a strawman if (if! I don't know if they do!) they actually quoted not only this verse, but something more that that you fail to acknowledge (some other verse, some context that imply a broader meaning, ...)Gem fr (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I was only referencing just that 1 Bible verse. I find it highly unlikely another part of the Bible condemns women-on-women homosexuality, so for my purposes I'm only arguing from just that 1 verse. Obviously, this is not so much a fallacy problem, but a communication problem. If I were writing a summary-pamphlet on the Bible, I would be precise to say "the Bible condemns male-on-male homosexuality" and not "homosexuality." And most simpletons won't raise their hand and say "Hey wait a minute, what about woman-on-woman homosexuality?" I guess if this is or isn't a fallacy, it doesn't have a name. (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
You may check inference. This is pretty common, including in matter of law. This may or may not be a fallacy, depending on the matter and the context, and would be decided by scholars.
As for the specifics of homosexuality as the Bible see it, it looks like scholars are divided, and some indeed concluded that god don't care about woman-on-woman, but surely not just because only men are mentioned as active in the chapter. Gem fr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Consider this from the point of an Aristotelian syllogism or a fairly simple Boolean / Venn diagram.
However, it seems you just want to prove your point despite evidence to the contrary. If logics does not help, you may need a rabbi specialising in lesbian readings of the Torah.
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
When the Bible (or any law book, for what it matters) ever was a "fairly simple Boolean / Venn diagram", to be viewed as just another Aristotelian syllogism? I certainly am the sophist enough to say "Oh look, the verse says I should not approach the woman, and I did not: SHE did the approaching. So I am not guilty", but this would be pure bad faith and strawman (aka: fallacy) and I know it, and so do you, I guess. I don't know, nor care, what this ancient law actually say, anyway; I understand that some people do care, in which case, the way to resolve this, is just to ask scholars, NOT to claim to be one and to use obviously irrelevant formal logic. Gem fr (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
LOL - I guess we could make a diagram-map as to what books of the Bible Christians interpret literally and what parts interpret as non-literally. Imo the book of Revelations they interpret non-literally. Some books like Genesis depends on the denomination. (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

US prosections by FBI[edit]

Watching "Mindhunter" when the FBI wanted to search and then charge Wayne Bertram Williams they had to convince the state District Attorney to issue a warrant at each stage. Being British I might have this wrong but I thought that the FBI could make a federal prosecution without permission from the state. What can and what can't the FBI do without state permission? - Q Chris (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many things that are illegal under one or more state laws but that are legal under federal law, so only state authorities can prosecute those things. What I don't know is why the FBI would be investigating them. One possibility is there was an activity that crossed state lines that was illegal in the state law of one or more of the states involved. E.g. tobacco-growing states like South Carolina have low taxes on cigarette sales, but New York has very high taxes on them, so there is a steady "industry" of people buying cigarettes in SC and selling them illicitly in NY. That breaks NY law (but maybe not federal), yet it is interstate (which could mean FBI attention). This is just a guess though. (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation is a law enforcement agency. From the article: "Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted." Not sure about how they work with the attorney's in each state, perhaps it depends on the crime, or perhaps the TV writer took some liberties. RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The crime of kidnapping is investigated by the FBI, but prosecuted under state law. Kidnapping#United_States The FBI website at [7] describes other crimes the FBI will investigate, but some of which would also be tried at the state level. RudolfRed (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashburnham Place & John Bickersteth[edit]

Was the Rev. John Bickersteth who inherited Ashburnham Place in 1953 the same John Bickersteth who became Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1975? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly sounds likely, based on his age, and interest in religion in both cases. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

European Surrealism of the 12th and 13th Centuries[edit]

In Mark Wagner (artist)'s blog, I read:

Some years ago, while kicking around the shelves of the school art library, I stumbled on a book titled "European Surrealism of the 12th and 13th Centuries." This struck me as odd because in art class, I'd just learned that Andre' Breton invented Surrealism in the 1920s. But here was page after page of evidence to the contrary: sculptures and manuscript illuminations indulging unmistakable flights of fancy. All this hundreds of years before Breton.

I can't find a book with such a title. Probably Wagner misremembers the title, or it is a chapter or a paper in some book. I could ask Wagner, but I can also ask you. Can you find the book?

--Error (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The art movement is of the early twentieth century. But one can say one senses a surrealistic sensibility in anything. I guess this is original research. This brings to mind a discussion as to whether Nazca Lines can be considered Land art.

I just noticed/remembered—it actually got into the article: "The Earth art of the 1960s were sometimes reminiscent the much older land works, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds, the Nazca Lines in Peru, Carnac stones and Native American burial grounds, and often evoked the spirituality of such archeological sites." Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not rare for people to name a thing, and at the same time claim to have found it existing a long time before, just without someone to care to name it. For instance Hieronymus Bosch has been claimed to be surrealist and is included in Category:Dutch_surrealist_artists . Somehow Giuseppe Arcimboldo is not in the category, despite being mentioned in text. Gem fr (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Tate says surrealism is a "twentieth-century literary, philosophical and artistic movement that explored the workings of the mind, championing the irrational, the poetic and the revolutionary". MoMA says surrealism "was an artistic, intellectual, and literary movement led by poet André Breton from 1924 through World War II." Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Do we know how many of the Soviet people who were evacuated in 1941-1942 permanently stayed in the eastern USSR?[edit]

Do we know how many of the Soviet people who were evacuated in 1941-1942 (in response to Operation Barbarossa and Case Blue) permanently stayed in the eastern USSR? My own Jewish paternal grandfather and his parents and brother fled from Vinnytsia (then in the Ukrainian SSR, now in Ukraine) to Stalingrad and then again to Kuybyshev Oblast (now Samara Oblast; then in the Russian SFSR, now in Russia) once the Nazis were on the verge of reaching Stalingrad. None of them ever moved back to Ukraine after the end of World War II but instead remained in the Russian SFSR--with the parents remaining in Kuybyshev Oblast while my paternal grandfather and his brother eventually moved to other parts of the Russian SFSR once they became adults.

This personal family story motivated me to ask this question--how many of the Soviet people who were evacuated in 1941-1942 never actually moved back to the western USSR after their former homelands were liberated and instead permanently stayed in the more eastern parts of the USSR? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First, your family was wise to get out of there when they did. As for records, somehow I doubt if the Russians much cared to keep those type of records or to make them public. If they did, then they might be asked why people didn't feel safe enough to return, and that would bring up the massacres they committed there. So, finding records could be tricky, if any still exist. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)