Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 19

What proportion of people in the world have less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities?

A person, his/her parents, his/her grandparents, his/her great-grandparents, his/her great-great-grandparents, his/her great-great-great-grandparents, and his/her great-great-great-great-grandparents, with 7 consanguinities, adding up to 2^7-1 = 127 different individuals, a person usually has 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities, but some person has less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities (this is because consanguine marriage), what proportion of people in the world have less than 127 persons within the 7 consanguinities? Also, what is the minimum number of persons within the 7 consanguinities such that there is a known person (may be in history) to have? 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an article in the German WP, de:Ahnenschwund, which traces geneaologies of selected royalties for >7 generations. Estimating any average may be impossible, as such documentation is only available for a few notable individuals. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

OMG, that's so not true. We have nearly all the family trees of everybody on Iceland going back to 874. See deCODE genetics. Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Iceland is, compared to continental Europe, a total exception to mobility. Numerous wars and migratory shifts have resulted in the loss of documentation on the European mainland. There is no point in extrapolating from a sample of 1 which is not representative. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. People choose mates the same way, mobility up to about 1850 was low worldwide, and all OP wants is an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• UK:
• Celtic population
• Roman legions in England
• Viking incursions, South and East
• Anglo-Saxon settlement in England
• Viking era under Cnut the Great
• Norman Conquest
• Great Fire of London
• Emmigration to US and other colonies
• Blitz Krieg
• Immigration from (previous) colonies
• Immigration of EU labour forces

• Iceland
• Population = Natfari and 2 slaves in the 9th century
• Settlement by Old Norse and Gaelic groups, 874 AD
• No wars
• No conquests

• That Icelanders are the same species is a profoundly irrelevant and idiotic comment. That mobility (on the continent) was low until 1850 is total rubbish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's you who don't get it. Everyone alive today who is of European heritage is descended from everybody alive in Europe in the year 800. Why? That was 48 or so generations ago given a 25 year generation time, meaning that you theoretically have 281,474,976,710,656 ancestors from the year 800. Or, if you assume 3 generations per 100 years, then 68,719,476,736 ancestors from the year 800. This makes the difference between Iceland and all of Europe look like a rounding error. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are some flaws in your assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In the more densely populated parts of Europe, there's a village every 2 km. Even centuries ago, people could easily marry someone from three villages away. Back in the 17th–18th century, your ancestors 6 generations back could come from a 5000 km² area (assuming no mass migrations, which did happen), housing around 200,000 people, more than the entire population of Iceland back then. (Rough numbers.)

You cannot assume Iceland is representative for Europe. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can, they are the same species, and mate the same way. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that marriage customs in Iceland are identical to those throughout the rest of Europe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Then people in Iceland must conciously avoid mating somebody with a common great-great-great-grandparent. I don't know Icelanders that well, but here on the continent most people don't know who their great-great-grandparents were, even when it can be looked up in the archives. Else, random chance makes cosanguine marriages within 6 generations more likely on Iceland, simply due to the smaller pool to draw mates from. And if Icelanders conciously avoid cosanguine marriages within 6 generations, they may be less common than on the continent. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there were very explicit rules shared by everyone in the Catholic world and probably in all Christendom. You went to the priest, they looked in the church register and worked out the consanguinity using a mathematical method. If it violated the rule (mentioned in the article Libellus responsionum), you had to apply to the Pope in Rome for a dispensation, which he would use to extract a lot of money from the nobility, who were more likely to engage in close marriages. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who has studied their own family tree will probably know the answer for themselves, but even if that information could be compiled across all trees somehow, there's no assurance it would represent a reliable average. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For Cleopatra VII I find 24 individuals, assuming that Cleopatra I had four different grandparents. In particular, Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III, themselves uncle and niece, where great-grandparents of Cleopatra VII along three different lines and great-great-grandparents of hers along two more lines. There may be Egyptian royals where you find an even lower number. Assuming the family trees are correct; amongst nobility extramarital sex happened sometimes on purpose to prevent inbreeding. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Then there's King Tut, whose parents were brother and sister. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

From a distant sociological point of view there is nothing like - exists akin without a fully homogeneously structured population. Except for one given durable period in insolated Iceland, and outrageously punctual, this or that other capital city blessed with the kind of magical aura making their burghers view themselves shiningly aristocratic. It's well known that otherwise, they'd finished dissolving in cretinism. --Askedonty (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of King Tut? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Charles II of Spain (see Avunculate marriage#Medieval European royals, there are only 24 different persons within the 5 consanguinities of Charles II of Spain)? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Alfonso XII of Spain? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Ferdinand I of Austria? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Cleopatra VII (see Pedigree collapse)? Where for a “normal” person the answer is 127. 36.233.246.191 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

King Tut: Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt family tree is incomplete and some lines are uncertain, but other dan his parents, who were siblings, the next pair of ancestors who were related happened 8 generations before. I cannot conclude that the number as asked in the question is fewer than 63.

Charles II of Spain: 49. Going more generations back, there are more consanguinities to be found.

Cleopatra VII I already mentioned above: 24.

PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

June 23

"...year of his age"

The grave of Pelham Humfrey states: "Here lieth interred the body of Mr. Pelham Humphrey, who died the fourteenth of July, Anno Dom. 1674, and in the twenty-seventh year of his age". Does this mean age 27, as stated in the article, or rather age 26? Can we be sure about the right interpretation of 17th century English? --KnightMove (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, our article at Mary Jones and her Bible seems to document a case, in 1800, where " in the 16th year of my age" must have meant "in the year leading up to my 16th birthday", i.e. at the age of 15. I don't know how consistent historical usage would have been about this either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks - and there are sufficient sources to confirm this viewpoint. Example. --KnightMove (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a translation of the Latin phrase "(Anno) Aetatis Suae", and may not have ever been very natural in English... AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, since we only know the year of his birth, it's not possible to say whether he was 26 or 27 when he died. This is a clever way of putting it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

[slinks into dunce corner and hangs head in shame] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think so anymore because the phrase is also used for people with completely known birth-and-death dates. Another example to the one I have linked above (Benjamin Franklin), from the same period as Humfrey: "... Mr. Philip Henry, minister of the gospel near Whitchurch in Shropshire, - Who died June 24, 1696, in the sixty fifth year of his age..." (source) - Henry was 64 years old.

Although we don't know Pelham Humfrey's date of birth anymore, and it probably wasn't known at the time, they seem to have assumed he was 26 years old when he died, and this is the best information we have. That's why several sources give the time of his birth as 1647/48 (never 1646/47), consistently interpreting his gravestone in this way. --KnightMove (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In Latin it would imply 26.  --Lambiam 07:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously 26. In your first year, you're age 0; in your second year you're age 1; in your 27th year you're age 26. Nyttend (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Standard fencepost error. Same thing that confuses some people about the century divides. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. When you are in your first year of your age, you have not yet reached your first birthday. Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we handle human age the same way as we count floors on buildings. In the USA we start at one and anywhere else we start at zero. This would simplify any emergent confusion. For selected celebrities from Muslimic areas we should also use the lunar calendar to avoid any accusations of cultural appropriation. In the case of scientists engaged in cosmology or astronomy the inverse square rule is mandatory, modified by the curvature of space-time. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Better still, we should handle days, months and years the same way we do hours, minutes and seconds. Today is 2023:05:25. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(closing small tag)AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

According to traditional East Asian age reckoning, you were 1 year old when you were born, and this number was added to by 1 on each subsequent Chinese New Year (no relevance to Mr. Pelham Humphrey, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

June 25

State of Michigan - Upper Peninsula

I am curious: why is the Upper Peninsula a part of the state of Michigan, and not a part of the state of Wisconsin? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the Michigan article, when it became a state it was granted the U.P. in trade for the settlement of a boundary dispute with Ohio, as Ohio had won that dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wisconsin wasn't granted statehood until over a decade later. At that point it would require a literal act of Congress and consent of both Wisconsin and Michigan to transfer the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

See Toledo War for the boundary dispute. Nyttend (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WTO Compliance Proceedings

Are parties allowed to raise new issues during WTO Compliance Proceedings? Grotesquetruth (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Where is Papa Doc?

According to our article François Duvalier "On 8 February 1986, when the Duvalier regime fell, a crowd attacked Duvalier's mausoleum, throwing boulders at it, chipping off pieces from it, and breaking open the crypt. Duvalier's coffin was not inside, however. A prevailing rumor in the capital, according to The New York Times, was that his son had removed his remains upon fleeing to the United States in an Air Force transport plane the day before." Has his body ever turned up? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in storage next to the Ark of the Covenant Chuntuk (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26

Does anyone know anything about this Indian (Buddhist?) story?

I once read an Indian story that went like this: "A courtesan was in love with a sadhu who wasn't interested and refused to even go visit her. Sometimes later she provoked the king's anger so he ordered that her ears, nose, hands and feet be cut off and that she be abandoned at a cremation ground. Only at that point did the sadhu go visit her to teach her about the doctrine etc." I think the story is Buddhist but I'm not sure. Does anyone know anything about such a story, specifically the name of the courtsan, and the source? 178.51.74.75 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(As a Buddhist) I have never come across this. It doesn't sound Buddhist, and sadhus are Hindu. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As Shantavira says, it doesn't sound Buddhist, however, IIRC, many stories do change over time based on time, place, and culture, and I'm pretty sure the Buddha has been referred to as "sadhu" before. While I don't recognize this particular story, there are quite a few Buddhist folk tales that involve imagery related to the "cutting off" of appendages (I put "cutting off" in quotes for a reason, there's a lot of metaphors involved and often these stories are not intended to be taken literally). Three stories come to mind right away because they are so popular: the story of Angulimala ("The Finger Necklace"); the story of Gutei ("Gutei's finger"); and the story of Huike ("Huike Offering His Arm to Bodhidharma"). There are likely many more of these stories, as the Buddhist literature and canon is too large for any one person to know it all. In fact, I've read elsewhere that it is so large, that it is unlikely that 99% of Buddhists are familiar with it as a whole. What's amazing about that, is that the extant literature probably represents less than 20%, given how much has been lost to time and conquerors. The enormity of that idea is frankly astonishing. Christians don't like to hear it, but there are too many coincidences between this imagery and that of Matthew 5:30 and the Sermon on the Mount to dismiss some kind of chain of inheritance of cultural ideas over a period of many centuries. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: the Nichiren Buddhists say "Sādhu also means upright, good, honorable, righteous, or correct, and also indicates a holy man or a sage.[1] There's an interesting post on Stack Exchange that talks about the history of the word "sadhu" in Buddhism. In Sri Lanka it is often used to refer to a Buddhist monk. According to one person, "Budu Sadhu" is the term for "Lord Buddha" in Sri Lanka. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I believe I have identified the story, but the details are vastly different. What you describe sounds remarkably like the "Story of Sirimā the Courtesan".[2] You will note the similarity of the courtesan being brought to the cremation ground and the role of the King. The difference is that the courtesan's body is not amputated, but rather decomposed, which plays the same role as amputation in the story, particularly as the body falls apart over time. Another difference is that the doctrine was not necessarily taught to the courtesan in the same way (although she was a follower of the Buddha in the story), but rather was taught to the monk, who went "crazy" obsessing over the courtesan out of his desire for her overwhelming beauty. Her death showed that her beauty was fleeting, which is illustrated in the story as her dead body is being eaten by worms and undergoing putrefaction. I believe it's the same story because the lesson is identical. You initially said the courtesan was in love with the sadhu, but I think you got it backwards. In this story, the sadhu is in love with the courtesan, which in fact, makes a lot more sense. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I can believe that the story I'm faintly remembering had points of similarities with other stories and that maybe there's a constellation of common themes that generate similar stories in Buddhist lore but not that I've misremembered what I read to such an extent that the story of Sirimā that you're recounting has somehow reassembled itself in my head to produce what I remember. But there are definitely common themes. Incidentally my use of the word sādhu is not meant to be taken technically. I'm not certain that's the terminology used in the source I've taken that story from and I obviously can't check: if I knew where I've read that story I'd have no reason to ask the question here. But thanks for the research. 178.51.74.75 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there are many other similarities I didn’t mention. In your version of the story, the courtesan provoked the anger of the king; in the story of Sirima, she provokes the anger of the Buddha. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: here’s a more condensed version:

Sirima. A courtesan of Rajagaha and younger sister of Jivaka. She was once employed by Uttara (Nandamata) to take her place with her husband (Sumana) while Uttara herself went away in order to indulge in acts of piety. During this time Sirima tried to injure Uttara, on account of a misunderstanding, but on realizing her error, she begged forgiveness both of Uttara, and, at the latters suggestion, of the Buddha. (The details of this incident are given Uttara Nandamata.) At the conclusion of a sermon preached by the Buddha in Uttaras house, Sirima became a sotapanna.[3]

That helps a bit. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Three UK train crashes on one Sunday

My father was just telling me that he recalls a Sunday in the period 1963-1967, when there were three train crashes in the UK, on one day.

When was it and where were they? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't see anything at either List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom or List of accidents on British Rail. The latter does shew two crashes on 1 August 1963, but as well as being, like Mr Spiggott's legs, one too few, it was a Thursday not a Sunday. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, one of those two crashes involved two trains while the other incident only involved one, so on 1 August 1963 you could say that three trains crashed. It's possible (if unlikely) that this is how it got framed on some headlines to sound more sensational. Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

June 27

East Asian art

Why did the art of east Asia never have a "renaissance" and moved to a high degree of realism like European art did? I would think isolationism and a conformist culture would be an explanation, but during the Edo period of Japan, they did have some foreign influences still, like fabric patterns were adopted by the Japanese that were Indian and European in origin and brought to the country by the Dutch. It seems odd the influence would stop short of painting and drawing though. -- THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 04:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on Japonisme. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

See also the Hockney-Falco thesis, which holds that the realism in Western Rennaissance art was due to the development of optical instruments. The jury has yet to reach a verdict on that one. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, one particular focus of Chinese painting was broad panoramic landscapes, often much wider than they were high, and it's doubtful whether an imposed mathematical perspective of viewing the whole scene from strictly one single geometric point would have been artistically beneficial in that case. As William H. McNeill said, "Chinese painters had learned also to indicate space as a unified and unifying whole, but not by means of linear perspective... Chinese landscapes were projected instead from a shifting aerial point of vision" -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I can't remember the artist or title, but there's a probably European Renaissance painting of human figures against a background of lines of classical pillars (colonnades) receding into the distance, and while use of perspective did add a certain kind of realism to the scene, it also seemed to flashily call attention to itself, so that viewers were more preoccupied with the geometry than with what the painting was actually supposed to be about (or at least I was). Perspective is a powerful technique in the service of art, but it doesn't follow that an artwork with perspective is automatically better than a comparable one without... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You may refer to Raphael's School of Athens. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not flashy enough. The one I had in mind had a line of Parthenon-like columns starting in the left foreground and receding toward the center distance, and another line starting in the right foreground and also receding toward the center distance. AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it was a renaissance of something (perceived) to have happened before. Renaissance artists took things further, but they were deliberately grounding themselves in what have become known as "the classics" (i.e. ancient Greece and Rome). The Greeks did not use linear perspective in the way that Brunelleschi and others did, but they did know enough about it to use it for effect and they were generally proponents of the concept of "balance". East Asian art has its own concepts of balance and its own classics that it has to push against and be measured against. Matt Deres (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, while Japanese artists would have been technically able to realize "a high degree of realism", this was not considered artistically valuable and therefore not worth aiming at. Consider that the high degree of realism of the wax figures at Madame Tussauds is also not artistically appreciated; the art world prefers unrealistically white marble or dark bronze.  --Lambiam 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Chinese painters could do realism, and had their own perspective system that suited long scrolls - Along the River During the Qingming Festival is a famous, much-copied version. They were also very interested in reviving "classic" styles, but this most often meant the older versions of the scholar-artist or "literati" tradition, supposedly practiced by amateur scholars, where realism was mostly associated with "court painting" by professional but not very highly-educated artists (often hereditary). This also affected Japanese painting. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

National Rally–The Republicans alliance crisis

There is something I'm missing in regards to National Rally–The Republicans alliance crisis. What I do understand: Éric Ciotti, the president of The Republicans (LR), attempted to establish an electoral alliance with National Rally for the 2024 French legislative election. Most of the leadership of LR objected to this and voted to remove Ciotti from the presidency of the party and also from membership in the party. Ciotti sued and got a court ruling that he was still the president of LR.

However, the article does not clearly explain why the court found in favor of Ciotti, probably due to translation problems. It says: "The two successive exclusions of Ciotti, by the political bureau on 12 June then by the same body and the national council on 14 June, are considered to have no legal value by the main party concerned. Both were subsequently challenged in court in summary proceedings and suspended by the courts, which ruled on the fact that the lower court must be seized “within eight days” by “the most diligent party”, failing which “the suspension measure ordered will lapse”." What does this mean with the lower court being "seized" by "the most diligent party"? Is this supposed to mean that in eight days (after when?), LR would be allowed to remove Ciotti again? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The court decision is only a temporary one which allows Ciotti to continue as president of Les Républicains until the underlying issues are decided upon. The issue is whether the party members who voted to exclude him did so in conformity with party rules (normally it would be the party president who calls for an extraordinary bureau meeting such as the one that voted to exclude Ciotti, but obviously, that is not what happened). The anti-Ciotti faction's argument is that an alternative way of calling such a meeting is if a quarter of the members of the national executive request it, which is how they proceeded before voting Ciotti's exclusion. [4] Ciotti may have won the initial judicial battle, but he is clearly in a minority position within his party, and most members have refused to follow him in an alliance with the Rassemblement National. Xuxl (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

June 28

Talos period

I am proofing a presentation that makes reference to Talos. It doesn't give any form of time period. This is for a general audience, not historians. What time period should be used? I don't like any ideas I've had such as: "Around 300 BC..." is boring. "In the third century BC..." is confusing. "In Hellenistic Greece..." only makes sense if you have heard of "Hellenistic" before. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is this "Talos period" you speak of? AFAIK, there is no period associated with the mythological Talos you've linked to. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You can say, "In 2024, I prepared a presentation that makes reference to Talos." If you want us to tie spme statement to a time period, you need to indicate what the statement is. The earliest known references to the myth, by Simonides of Ceos, date from the Lyric Age of Greece – which unfortunately will only make sense to people who have heard of "the Lyric Age of Greece" before. But I guess this is true for all terms, from Bronze Age to Hellenistic Greece to Anthropocene.  --Lambiam 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reference, I asked on Reddit as well. The answer on Reddit was simple: "Use Circa 300BCE because most people will understand that." You can see the answers here are baseically "We are going to be as pedantic as possible and refuse to provide any answer that might be considered useful." 75.136.148.8 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I would have answered the 300BCE stuff as well but just did not consider that was a good idea. Some will like their coffee sweet and other won't, and we're taking care of your welfare too. You will not shine the same in your presentation depending on the pot you're taking your sugar from. --Askedonty (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Copping an attitude is not likely to improve your chances of getting what you're after. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd say "Use circa 300BC because more people will understand that (unless your intended audience are all college-educated Americans under say 35, or academics)." Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You told us that "Around 300 BC" is boring. Indeed, "Circa 300BCE" is much more exciting! But what does this period refer to? "Circa 300BCE, Talos toured thrice a day around Crete?".  --Lambiam 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Look at the article (which boringly uses BC). Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

June 30

A Cato the Elder quote?

Does anyone know the source of the following quote: "Two augurs cannot walk past each other without smiling". (Since they both know what nonsense their predictions are.) It is associated in my mind with Cato the Elder but I'm not entirely confident. I've checked Wikiquote and it's not there. Leaving aside the attribution, does anyone recall a similar saying? 178.51.74.75 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, attributed to one Cato or another by Cicero in Book 2 of De Divinatione: "But indeed, that was quite a clever remark which Cato made many years ago: 'I wonder,' said he, 'that a soothsayer doesn't laugh when he sees another soothsayer.'" [5]. (Vetus autem illud Catonis admodum scitum est, qui mirari se aiebat quod non rideret haruspex haruspicem cum vidisset.) [6]. --Antiquary (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Cicero refers to Cato the Younger earlier in the same book: "I have also recently thrown in that book On Old Age, which I sent my friend Atticus; and, since it is by philosophy that a man is made virtuous and strong, my Cato¹ is especially worthy of a place among the foregoing books." So it is likely he is referring to the great-grandson. Later he mentions Cato in the list "Cato, Varro,² Coponius or I?". Varro and Coponius were contemporaries of Cicero, so this also points to Cato the Younger.  --Lambiam 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points, but when I look on Google Books for attributions from modern Classics scholars I only find them naming Cato the Elder, either by name or as the author of De agri cultura: [7] [8] [9]. Is that solely because in that work Cato the Elder told his steward not to consult haruspices? But others were also rather sniffy about them [10]. I'm left in doubt which Cato Cicero meant. --Antiquary (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Cato the Younger was younger than Cicero. If "De Divinatione" is from around 44 BC (when Cato the Younger was about 50) what could "many years ago" mean and which of Cato the Younger's books (did he write any?) would have been written early enough in Cato's life and have given Cato an opportunity to say something about diviners? On the other hand is it possible that the "clever remark" may have been oral (either spoken directly or reported to Cicero)? Even if Cato's saying in Cicero's words feels like written Latin, is it possible that Cicero was parphrasing, not reporting it literally? Incidentally there's something intriguing about a deeply traditionalist guy (both Catos were) being skeptical of and even sarcastic about a matter of religion. A mix of pragmatic skepticism and traditionalism seems to fit Cato the Elder better, doesn't it? Traditionalism in Cato the Younger's time seems to have become too demonstrative and ideological for him to allow himself to mock a matter of religion, doesn't it? 178.51.74.75 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

July 1

French president

[11] Macron is the guy with the white shirt, right? Who is the guy in the baseball cap shaking hands with randoms? Another politican? Do I have them confused? And is the PM of France kind of an irrelevant figure? In other countries with PM's I thought it was the other way around, the PM runs things and the president is a figurehead. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Macron is the person in the leather jacket / the baseball cap, joining Brigitte Macron for part of the take. The guy in the white shirt, shown at the start of the video may be security. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

France is a semi-presidential republic, or dual executive republic in which a president exists alongside a prime minister (from Semi-presidential_republic). There are two competitive readings of the French Constitution, see Constitution_of_France. To me, except may be during "cohabitation periods", the usual interpretation is in favor of a "powerful president". — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Still, to add to what AlsoSyrt said, the Prime Minister is far from insignificant. Under the previous two Republics, from 1871 to 1958, however, it was the President who was largely a ceremonial figure. Xuxl (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

See also Prime Minister of France which says: "The extent to which... decisions lie with the prime minister or president often depends upon whether they are of the same political party. If so, the president may serve as both the head of state and de facto head of government, while the prime minister serves as his deputy". Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. The guy in the white shirt (starting at 0:11 in the video) resembles photos of Macron that I've seen, so I got confused. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court reversing itself more than once

With the current Sup Ct reversing well known earlier decisions, I'm wondering if there are any that it reversed more than once. Like Lawrence v. Texas reversed some earlier decisions, but Justice Thomas proposed that the current court reverse Lawrence v. Texas, so the two reversals would cancel each other out. I'm wondering whether anything like that has actually happened. We have List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions so maybe I try do a manual self-join, but I figure I'd miss some things, and that such incidents would be known to people into such things. I asked same question in the talk page for that list article before thinking of asking here. That's probably a better place to answer, but if necessary I can relay from here. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Guy de Maupassant

My question is fairly simple: did 19th-century French author Guy de Maupassant (1850–1893) ever write about or fictionalize a character in his work based upon Suzanne Valadon? I ask, because W. Somerset Maugham biographer Anthony Curtis (1926-2014), in his 1992 introduction to The Razor's Edge (1944), describes Maugham's character of "Suzanne Rouvier" as "straight out of Maupassant". (Curtis 1992). Prior to this, in the same introduction, Curtis describes her character using an almost identical description of the real-life Valadon, however, nowhere does he mention her name. Additionally, we know that Maupassant and Valadon were contemporaries and frequented the Chat Noir at the same time (Snow 1958). One year before Curtis wrote this new introduction, the World Wide Web went public in 1991. Mosaic popularized its usage greatly in 1993, and by 1995, Netscape unleashed the flood gates. Now, here's where things get murky: from what I can surmise, post-1995, an early website creator named "The Wanderling" read Curtis' 1992 introduction, and started promoting the idea on the web that "Suzanne Rouvier was based on Suzanne Valadon". Fast forward to 2024, and all iterations of this claim appear to trace back to "The Wanderling" and his early website. Which brings me back to my original question. What exactly did Curtis mean by Rouvier being "straight out of Maupassant"? Finally, is there any good evidence besides the website created by "The Wanderling", that Rouvier is based on Suzanne Valadon? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Note, if anyone wants more intricate details and extended quotations from the above cited works, I have included them at Talk:Suzanne_Valadon#Re:_W._Somerset_Maugham. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2

"Organization of Emerging African States"?

I'd like some decent independent WP:RS about what this org is.[12][13][14]. They have a website, but my browser don't think I should go there. Mentioned at List of active separatist movements in Africa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From a quick look it seems to be an initiative created by Ebenezer Akwanga, a separatist from Cameroon who has lived in exile in Nigeria, hence probably the mention in Nigerian sources you link. Whether it is much of a movement, or just an internet platform connecting activists, I am less able to tell. Newsweek reports it is operating from the US. CMD (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Found something:[15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)