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

September 13

Four white horses

Did Augustus ever ride a chariot drawn by four white horses? Temerarius (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, white horses were a thing in Roman triumphs. According to this book, Augustus seems not to have used them. --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well if i can paint my horses any color i like i bet a roman Emperor easily could too. Anyway, this idea connected to roman culture seem more originated in Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ than in roman history. Atleast roman mythology is not mentioned at all in White horse (mythology). --Kharon (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So, when Propertius wrote about Romulus driving four white horses he was inspired by Ben Hur and didn't know his mythology? --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiality

Is it possible to see the segment of The Colbert Report when Colbert introduced the word Wikiality? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep (unless geoblocking stops you from seeing this): [1]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway checkpoint near Beijing?

There are widely shared photos and videos of a jam on the G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway at the end of the Chinese national day golden week [2] in October 2015. But a lot of the reports are thoroughly confused. Actually even our article. They talk about a 50 lane highway merging into a 20 lane check point but this is just wrong. It may be the cars have expanded to fill 50 lanes, I've never counted but there is no 50 lane intended anywhere. The toll plaza is 25 lanes and this seems reasonable since the road itself is 4 lanes (one direction).

But the thing which confuses me is that even sources which do a decent job of debunk these myths don't really explain what's happening [3] [4]. These seems to be something going on after the toll plaza more than vehicles simply trying trying to merge back into the 4 lane expressway. Some reports mention a new checkpoint after the toll plaza but I haven't found any which explain what for. (Some seem to conflate the checkpoint with the toll plaza itself.)

These is a blue roof structure after toll plaza but only a small number of vehicles seem to be going through it. (I guess it could be some sort of topup centre for some sort of electronic pass but I'm surprised there are so few using it in that case and it also seems to be weirdly located.) A much larger number are going to the left. But weirdly it looks like there are 2 separate streams. Some to the immediate left of the blue structure. And some in segregated section to the left of this, there's some sort of barrier between them, they eventually merge a while after the blue structure. (It could be that all vehicles going in that part are meant to go through the blue roof structure.)

There's some other structure at the end of the barrier, it sort of looks like a house but I assume this isn't one of those 'property owner refused to sell so let's build the road around them' situations since the barrier only protects them on one side. There's writing on the blue roof structure in the video in the first external link ([5]), but I can't make it out even at high resolution. The location is near Beijing so I assume it isn't some sort of migration control. The blue roof structure etc are visible on Google's satellite view [6]

(In the jam video, some vehicles also seem to be making a u-turn after the toll plaza and heading back down another road but I suspect this may just be vehicles misusing an access road or on ramp.)

Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

September 14

Half full half empty

Why is this funny? Which psychological mechanism is taking part? Which theory of humor is applicable? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 10:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your questions. Why is what funny – the photo, or the old conundrum to which it refers? --Viennese Waltz 10:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems akin to the concept of signed zero and the intuitive uncomfortableness that that raises. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:55B3:ED87:DFE3:A4F8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the OP is unfamiliar with the old saw. Here are a couple of variations:

1. The optimist says it's half full; the pessimist says it's half empty; the efficiency expert says you have 50 percent too much glass.
2. The answer to half full or half empty is, "It depends on whether you're pouring or drinking."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would refer the OP to one of the best cartoons by the genius Gary Larson (now retired), detailing the "Four Basic Personality Types" - a |psychological profiling tool that I often usefully employ at Wikipedia. (The image can easily be found via Google Image search). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Optimist: This glass is half full

Pessimist: This glass is half empty

Pragmatist: Right, time for another round, who’s buying?

Denialist: I had a full glass a second ago... has someone been drinking my beer?

Feminist: Half-pints are patriarchal oppression!

(we could go on) Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Europeanist: If you want to serve beer in imperial measures, then 51.89% is plainly more than half. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the basic question of whether a glass is half full or half empty is not meant to be humorous; it's meant to expose whether the respondent is optimistic (optimists are presumed to reply that it is half full) or pessimistic (pessimists are presumed to answer that it's half empty). As you can see from above, this is frequently used as a framework to humourous additions, but the original piece was not meant to be funny. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a rigorous psychological test, either. It's kind of a metaphor. It also reminds me of something Alan Dershowitz said on a TV show about genealogy. He said sometimes the Jewish attitude towards someone who's a mixed-faith product can go either way. If he's thought to be ill-informed, they might say, "Oh, he's only half Jewish." But if he's thought to be very astute, they might say, "He's half Jewish!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well apparently it's to do with how caustic or acidic a politician is. Like for example, I guess, if Jeremy Corbyn's only half as bad as Hitler, etc.?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Half as bad as Hitler" would imply having killed "only" 3 million Jews, as opposed to 6 million. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The wording often accompanying the "half-full"/"half-empty" terminology is "sees the glass as". Therefore the overall phrase refers to a perspective, which presumably makes sense in the context in which it is used. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It never made sense to me, from the day I first heard it as a nerdy, pedantic, mathematics obsessed teenager. I simply saw half-full and half-empty as different ways of saying precisely the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In terms of numerical measurement, it is. It's not really about that - it's a metaphor about positive or negative attitudes. Like, is something an impediment, or is it an opportunity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Right from the start I gathered it wasn't meant to be about precise measurements, but my character at the time could not see another perspective. This WAS half a century ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A lot of things we encounter when we're young can take a while to make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Who says it's meant to be funny? I don't find it funny. Just sort of decorative. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Which of the two markings is informative depends whether the reader is the barman or the drinker. There is a titillating sense of Paradox in the notion that being half-way through emptying can be indistinguishable from being half-way through filling, which may be called an example of Dialetheism. DroneB (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(The above responses copied from the OP's double-posting at the Misc desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC))

[7]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article this is from claims it's an example of "Incongruous juxtaposition". ie: We don't intuitively expect "Half full" and "half empty" to both be marked by the same line, and so we're surprised to be reminded that they're the same value stated from different frames of reference.

I disagree. Maybe when the half-full/half-empty idiom was first introduced that was the case, but now that it's a very well-known trope, this bar glass is just engaging in reference humor. Like when a sit-com mentions a pop-culture thing without really saying anything witty about it. ApLundell (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 15

Dr Parodi, "agent of the opposition party in Turkey", First World War

Who was the Dr Parodi, "agent of the opposition party in Turkey", with whom Philip Kerr had a discussion about a possible peace with Turkey? The interview took place in Switzerland on 18th December 1917. Dr Parodi is also described as "head of the Mission Scolaire Egyptienne". DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a bit more info: Dr. H. Parodi, from:  Millman, Brock (22 May 2014). "Pessimism and British War Policy, 1916-1918". Routledge. p. 150. 88. -- which references p. 138 (that page not particularly helpful) —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A little more from Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904-1924 by Richard J Popplewell. "Dr Parodi, the director of the Egyptian School at Geneva, had worked for the British since before the war. Leading Egyptian nationalists trusted him." Swiss police allowed him to see papers they had seized from another Eqyptian nationalist (Mansur Rifaat) who had fled Switzerland in August 1914, and he passed the details on to the British Ambassador. He was still working for the British at the end of the War. Google books. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I found a tantalising glimpse in a search result for "PARODI, Dr. HUMBERT DENIS, Swiss Chemist: born July 8, 1876" in World Biography, Volume 2 (1948), p. 3655. There was a fragmentary mention of Egypt too, but I couldn't tell if it was for his entry or further down the page. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Et voila!

'He relied far more, however, upon a volunteer agent, Dr. Humbert Denis Parodi, a strikingly handsome, dark-skinned Swiss citizen of French and Italian descent, who had worked before the war for the Egyptian government as inspector general of public instruction in Cairo...' The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Jonathan Schneer (p. 254).

'Swiss doctor Humbert Denis Parodi, former government inspectorgeneral of public instruction in Egypt, worked with Binns as “the snoop assigned to the surveillance of Egyptian students in Geneva”.' Germany's Covert War in the Middle East: Espionage, Propaganda and Diplomacy in World War I by Curt Prüfer.

He died in 1953. Philosophy , Volume 9 (1953)

I also found 'PARODI André. Counsellor of Legation, b. Cairo, March 10, 1909. son of Parodi - Humbert Denis and Mathlide Bernard' Who's Who in Switzerland: Including the Principality of Lichtenstein (1952)

Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Splendid work, thank you Alansplodge. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ropes with elaborate knots

St John's Church, Chester - Hiram-Fenster 2

This image has a lot of interesting details, I stumbled on it while editing Boaz and Jachin. My question is, what is the meaning/symbolism of the knotted ropes on both sides of Hiram? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing all the Masonic symbols, see the section 'Knotted Ropes and Cords' in this link [8]. Nanonic (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be it, yes. Unusually Masonic for a church, perhaps? Of course use of symbols will overlap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

We have an article on the church, St John the Baptist's Church, Chester. The window is a memorial to the architect T. M. Lockwood. It's not at all unusual to see Masonic symbolism in glass of that era in Anglican churches. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiram Abiff was of course the architect of Solomon's Temple, and a central figure in Masonic shenanigans. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

And, of course, Freemasons originated as a guild of stonemasons -- who built churches and cathedrals. This was back when initiations and esotericism was common in guilds -- which the Freemasons took to the N^th degree (N=32). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining the exact type of knot shown in the window. I thought at first it was a double alpine butterfly knot, but that is too complicated. I think maybe its just a figure of eight knot with two of the turns pulled out to form loops, but I can't get the bit of string on my desk to look the same. Can any nodologists out there help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a figure of eight, I think it might be some kind of Turk's Head. I'll have a closer look in a day or two (just about to go out). DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, you might try the (surprisingly active) International Guild of Knot Tyers forum: [9], who might find this knotty problem interesting, —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ... or, try perusing the huge List of knots.

It’s obviously a secret knot, known only by the Freemasons... if you figure it out, you can control the world. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking love knots per Nanonic's link, but maybe there's more Dan Brown in this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in seriousness, the specific type of knot is not important to Masonic symbolism... so representations will vary from depiction to depiction (and does not have to be something that can be tied in real life).

That's what they want you to believe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• The knot's a winged cross knot. Masons have lots of symbolism to knotted ropes (typically a loop with twelve equally-spaced knots - if you pull it into a triangle you get a 3:4:5 triangle and a square corner) but little (AFAIK) to knots themself. They favour the figure eight knot rather than a simple overhand, but I've not seen this winged knot used. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Big-Huge List of knots doesn't include the winged cross knot (as seen here), or even a "basic" cross knot (as seen here). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia calls the basic cross knot a Friendship knot and lists the alternative names as "Chinese cross knot, Japanese crown knot, Square knot (British usage), Success knot, Rustler's knot, Buckaroo knot". A unified system of nomenclature has so far eluded the world of knotting. Perhaps there should be Latin binomials, as in biology. Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- closed-loop knots are studied by mathematicians, and have several systems of precise terminology. The worlds of closed-loop knots and open-loop knots seem to have little overlap (e.g. Figure-eight knot vs. Figure-eight knot (mathematics)). AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks AnonMoos. Fascinating but completely incomprehensible to me I'm afraid. I've read it twice and I'm still none the wiser. A really useful knot though, but we Britons always say "figure OF eight". [10] Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Here it be. It doesn't seem to have the axial symmetry which the window image has, perhaps some artistic licence. I have added this to the friendship knot article. Thanks and well done, Andy Dingley. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The reference desk, you gotta love it. Sometimes like a strange form of art/poetry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Mystery knot solved

I posted on the forum (linked above); after some discussion, someone named Xarax came up with the solution: (Mystery-knot.JPG) — He remarked that: "...it is just a type of simple double loop with communicating eyes... It is meant to be hung from somewhere, hence its vertical orientation." See forum discussion thread:[11] Note that it is somewhat different from Alansplodge's photo, but identical in form to the window image (on the right). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Splendid. I have now replicated it with the string on my desk. It seems to be completely useless as a knot, pulling either loop turns it into a simple overhand knot, but I suppose it has decorative value. Many thanks for your efforts. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Part II: A more exact knot (by SS369, same forum): [12] 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It does look more like the knot in the window. Even more useless though. Thanks again. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Unwanted crown

How many times have there been not enough (0) claimants to a crown, instead of the typical too many? Temerarius (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm speculating, but I think in some sense, there will always be claimants, like in King Ralph. But there's also cases like Charles XIV John of Sweden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Or in the case of a newly-minted kingdom, like Otto of Greece. --Xuxl (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well... some crowns were conferred by election... no one can claim to be Holy Roman Emperor. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

maybe I should have asked instead about times when a successor has refused a crown. Temerarius (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples. One could argue per George_I_of_Greece#King_of_the_Hellenes that Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha refused the crown of Greece, but it was probably not really his decision. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Some here, perhaps:[13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Frankfurt Parliament offered Frederick William IV the crown of Germany which he refused purportedly because he would not accept "a crown from the gutter" (he was already King of Prussia). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

22 years later, Henri, Count of Chambord refused the French crown, leading to the establishment of a temporary republic that stuck around until France's defeat in World War II. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia abdicated in favour, not of his son Aleksey, but of his brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, who declined to accept the throne, or at least chose to defer his acceptance until the Russian people's representatives had a say. The monarchy was abolished in the meantime, so the man prematurely proclaimed as "Tsar Michael II" was never actually tsar. See Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia#Abdication of Nicholas II. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Henryk Walezy was elected King of Poland, and was crowned in Krakow, and served in the role for a few months in 1574. Upon learning that he had inherited the Kingdom of France upon the death of his older brother, he basically skipped town and forgot that he ever was King of Poland. He never formally abdicated or anything, he just left Poland and ignored any of the Sejm's requests to please come back, or at least explain himself, or even acknowledge that he had actually been King of Poland. You know, anything like that. They waited about a year, and finally just decided he wasn't coming back and elected a new king. --Jayron32 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Charles XIV John of Sweden is supposed to have said something like "I was a Marshal of France, now merely King of Sweden", but Henry was worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

To go back to the original question, if you look at what happened when Anne, Queen of Great Britain died, Parliament had to pass an act (Act of Settlement 1701) decreeing that the Crown would pass to the heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, as there were no legitimate Protestant heirs in the country. This was to exclude the over 50 Catholic heirs with a better claim than hers. So although it was a manufactured situation, there were 0 heirs that were deemed suitable to acceed to the British throne in 1714. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement was passed before Anne became Queen, not after she died. Catholics were already barred from the throne by the Bill of Rights. DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

US Senators, 1894

I've identified four of the seven senators pictured here (the three chessmen that have been taken, and Hill at left), but I'm still missing three names: Boutelle (behind Hill), Blount (right of Lilioukalani), and Willis (right of Blount). I also don't know who Gresham is (man standing behind table). Any ideas? The cartoon dates from 1894, when the 53rd United States Congress was meeting, but these names aren't there: Boutelle is a representative, there's no Blount, the only Willis is Willis Sweet, and Gresham is a representative. Also, is there a senator whose appearance is the basis of the "Senate" chessman (holding the "Senate Investigation" roll) in Uncle Sam's hand? Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Q. Gresham (Judge)
• U.S. Commissioner James H. Blount (see also: Blount Report)

—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Albert S. Willis and Charles A. Boutelle. They all had some involvement in the Hawaiian matter, I gather by looking online at a bio of Gresham.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Gresham is likely standing behind the table as Cleveland's Secretary of State (a renegade Republican)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In 1894, Gresham was Judge of the United States Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No, he was Secretary of State from 1893 to his death in 1895. I can't swear to it, but I think maybe "Senate" is George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, a notable anti-interventionist. But I'd expect him to be on Cleveland's side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the cartoon is "circa 1894" -- the scenario seems to sugget the Senate investigation was soon to be, or just beginning. The Blount report was submitted in 1893 (while Gresham was still judge?). So, evidence suggests the cartoon was created before 1894. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ←(aka:2606:A000:...)

It's got to be not earlier than 1893 as Cleveland is plainly president and that is when the Hawaiian overthrow happened. Gresham was sworn in three days after Cleveland's inauguration. This cartoon also suggests "Senate" is Hoar.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) To me, the gist of the cartoon is that the game's "judge" (behind Cleveland) is having second thoughts after seeing Uncle Sam's move (Senate investigation). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, though I don't know what the Seventh Circuit (based in Chicago) on which he served would have to do with it and he isn't wearing robes. But given that Gresham was very often referred to as "Judge Gresham" (his clerk, by the way, would also be known as "The Judge", a young fellow named Kenesaw Mountain Landis), you may be right.This cartoon (Hoar depicted at 10 o'clock) also suggests "Senate" is Hoar. If it is, we've identified everyone and we can leave the interpretation for the OP.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are they playing with the white corner on the left? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the artist wasn't bothering to be that careful, and may not even have been a chess player: you may also notice that the pieces on the board aren't all centred on squares. The idea of the negotiations as a chess game is adequately conveyed without needing that degree of attention to detail. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The date of the cartoon is January 27, 1894. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Aha! -- the title "Judge" is a red herring. It refers to the verb, not the noun (asking the viewer to "judge"?); and is evidently one in a series→[magazine title] by that name from Sackett & Wilhelms Litho Co. Another example:File:Remember_the_Maine!_And_Don't_Forget_the_Starving_Cubans!_-_Victor_Gillam_(cropped).jpg -- more here:[14] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC) ... see also: Victor Gillam

By the way, drawing a Polynesian with exaggerated African lips is kind of stupid (and I bet a few people even in 1894 would have thought it was stupid). AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Few. It was common in the 19th century to characterize Polynesians with racist African features. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The Senate investigation that is "checkmating" Cleveland is most likely that which resulted in the Morgan Report. Although it was not released for month after the cartoon, they probably had a fair idea how it was going to come out, given the composition of the committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it funny how smug and skilled Uncle Sam is and he never noticed the chessboard is turned wrong. Even kids that are just learning the rules are taught "white on right" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what rank "Senate" is supposed to be but unless he is one, there isn't a king on the board.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blount is wearing a crown. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Sam's king is behind his sleeve? Usually chess kings are the tallest piece but this is already a weird set so why not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I took Blount for a bishop but if the black chess king is much smaller than the black chess queen, the white king may well be the one we can't entirely see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Uhmmm ... have we forgotten that this is just a cartoon? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I get your point but that's what Peter Griffin says after he grinds his body on a 10th or 11th grade girl. (actually "what? It's just a cartoon") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Y'all worrying about the details too much. This isn't a drawing of a real chess game, it's just a cartoon to get across the idea of "political maneuvering as a parallel to chess strategy". As someone mentioned earlier the board is not marked properly for a chess board. Not to mention the fact that the opponent is said to have lost his queen and the game, two conditions that are not the same thing in chess. Why should it bother us that one side does not have a visible king? --Khajidha (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That could be part of the joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

September 16

NTV Kenya

Even though per Religion in Kenya Islam accounts for only 11.1% there (with 84.8% Christians), in this news report the NTV Kenya presenter is in hijab. Why is that? Some regional Islamic office? Brandmeister^talk 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Why would there be any other reason than that the newsreader is a Muslim? Here in the UK Islam is only 4.4% of the population and we've had TV presenters wearing a hijab (though not on the news, as far as I can remember). Fgf10 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My second thought was that, but looks quite unusual. Brandmeister^talk 18:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

WHAAOE - see Fatima Manji - "Manji became Britain's first hijab-wearing TV newsreader in March 2016". Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This [15] shows what an empathetic lady Diana, Princess of Wales, was. 92.8.178.228 (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine diplomacy

Byzantine diplomacy doesn’t mention thisand I understand the Byzanines were offended when Nikephoros II Phokas was referred to as Emperor of th Greeks by the West. But how did the Byzantines referred to the Holy Roman Emperors? Did the Byzantine considered the HRE emperors or plain kings? If they did consider them emperors, did they refer to them as emperors of the Germans, Franks or Latins instead of considering them Western Roman Emperors?107.193.163.81 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

They didn't refer to them as emperors, because there was only one emperor (in Constantinople), and whatever the western Europeans thought they had couldn't be an empire according to the Byzantine world view. The basileus article talks a bit about how that title was used in diplomacy with the west ("The later German emperors were also conceded the title "basileus of the Franks".") I can't find it in the Greek text at the moment, but as an example, the translation of Nicetas Choniates actually refers to Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, as "king of the Germans". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't find an easily searchable text of Choniates at the moment, but on at least one occasion he calls Henry VI "krator" of the Germans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, technically.... -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, technically the HRE is only king of Germany/Italy/Provence until being crowned emperor by the Pope. The Byzantines were presumably aware of that. I know that Arabic sources also typically refer to the HRE as King of the Germans as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

See Michael I Rangabe: "In 812 Michael I reopened negotiations with the Franks, and recognized Charlemagne as basileus (King) (but not as Emperor of the Romans). In exchange for that recognition, Venice was returned to the Empire".

Also Irene of Athens#Relationship with the Carolingian Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Other than the Christian writings...

I'm super interested in texts similar to Misopogon and Passing of Peregrinus. That is, non-Christian writings from the first two or three centuries which have somehow survived to this day. I don't mean the famous political texts or histories (Josephus etc) or poetry of the time, but the other stuff like correspondences and satires and so on. I do mean specifically during the rise of Christianity. Can anyone recommend? Temerarius (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Juvenal's 16 Satires (early 2nd century) are written in poetic verse, but otherwise, you might enjoy them. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You might try browsing Category: 2nd-century novels and related categories (e.g., A True Story -a satirical novel by Lucian of Samosata). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have, I think, lasting wisdom.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Letters of Pliny the Younger which Wikipedia calls Epistulae. You can read the letters here. Pliny actually mentions the early Christians and efforts to suppress their activities, see Pliny the Younger on Christians. Alansplodge (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 17

Downton Abbey

In Episode 1 of Season 1 of Downton Abbey, one of the butler is seen ironing the morning's newspaper. He goes on to explain that this is done so that the ink completely dries and so does not get on the hands of the reader.

Is this historically accurate? By which I mean, are where any reliable sources attesting that butlers from this period (or earlier) indeed does iron out the newspaper for their clients? Mũeller (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not just historical - here is some fairly recent guidance on how to do it. [[16]] Wymspen (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a similar scene in The Remains of the Day. It's almost become a trope about English butlers by now. --Xuxl (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Downton Abbey is the reason why Britishisms are now creeping into American speech. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

'"The only reason we iron them is to keep the print on the paper," Rick says. "You knew that though, didn't you? That's the only reason the papers are ironed."' School for Jeeves by Georgina Pattinson, BBC News. Those of you who remember oil-based newsprint and the resultant grubby hands (before about 1990?) will understand. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The unspoken possibility, which Alansplodge's quotation is alluding to, is that the butler might iron the newspaper to conceal the fact that he's already read it himself (thereby creasing it) before handing it on to his employer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Anne Perry in her novel Whited Sepulchres mentions en passant a butler ironing the newspaper for his master. No reason is explicitly given but the context seems to suggest that people of superior taste and manners would not read a newspaper with traces of folding. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Although, it may be that Anne Perry doesn't actually know why newspapers were ironed. We have a reference from somebody who trains people to be butlers. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's both reasons [17]. Here's a step-by-step guide [18]. 92.8.178.228 (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Strategic bombers

I was wondering what nuclear bomber crews during the cold war era were to do once they carried out their mission. Were they supposed to just turn around and find an airbase in friendly territory? I recall watching an interview with a RAF Vulcan pilot who suggested he would have kept on flying to Mongolia after bombing his target, or that general direction at least. Were there any large scale contingency plans dealing with the return of strategic bombers and how feasible were they? What did different militaries expect its crews to do after carrying out their mission in a full scale nuclear war. And perhaps also, how much were any of those plans purely for morale of the crews? In the event there surely would have been little to come back to and few to care if one did, but i am curious what the orders and/or plans were. 37.138.236.209 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the date. For the middle period of the Cold War, the main principle was that of Mutually Assured Destruction. Bombers were not there to bomb anyone, but were there so that no-one (on either side) would be bombed. This wasn't a good fit for the operation of manned bombers, and so this was a relatively short period ('60s) before land-based and submarine-launched ICBMs took over this role.

If anyone actually took off to go bombing, the whole situation had failed. The world (or at least, its established government) was over. No-one knew what happened next, but the idea of “Keep flying east, and hope to settle down with a nice warm Mongolian woman.” was certainly a popular one. The idea was to find somewhere isolated, sufficiently to avoid any remaining military forces and also to keep a good distance from the drifting fallout from attacks on major targets. This gives rise to a whole theme of fatalist fiction around this time, Neville Shute's On The Beach being one of the best.

Before this period there had been the idea of fighting a nuclear war against the non-nuclear Soviet bear. There was an early CIA plan for a pre-emptive strike on the USSR in the 1940s. It wasn't proceeded with, because the US (for a surprisingly long time) had no more than half a dozen completed weapons.

Afterwards, from the 1970s onwards, the idea of actually fighting a war in Europe developed. The Soviets developed plans for how a conventional tank-driven advance through Germany could be achieved, later a nuclear version (which seemed oddly focussed on flattening Austria), and the NATO response was to start thinking about small, usable, battlefield nuclear weapons. This was a very dangerous disturbance to MAD and very nearly led to the 1983 war. The Reagan era was one of great hazard, where the first cruise missiles and Pershing II deployed in Europe were a profoundly destabilising influence. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the plan was to bomb the target, starting from a friendly base then return to a friendly base with midair refueling if necessary. It is usual to have an extraction plan in a military operation, even if –the bomber is likely to be shot down before reaching the target, the friendly base will have been nuked, and the refueling plane’s base or carrier will have been destroyed. Having an official extraction plan lets the crew comfort their families and themselves that it is not a definite suicide attack. Edison (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

According to this Reddit thread the Mongolian option mentioned by the OP was just a joke: '...in theory there were return routes but (according to Osprey's Vulcan Units of the Cold War) one Squadron Leader suggested that "Your best bet, young man, is to keep on flying east, come down somewhere deep in the country and settle down with a nice Mongolian woman".' Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of adding that i was not sure how tongue in cheek the statement actually was, cannot even recall exactly where i seen it. Now, that there were return routes is surely a given. But any aircraft setting off from the UK, as a random example of a smaller country, will presumably have had no bases to return to, at least within the isles itself. Was that 'triviality' just ignored in such 'flight plans' to give the impression of a potential return and ease of mind? Anyways, thanks for the input so far. 37.138.236.209 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As a side observation to this topic, I have been told by a military acquaintance that the on-board scenes set on the B52 bomber in Dr Strangelove . . . were procedurally as well as structurally very true to life, more so than any other fictional depiction. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 18

Please help me, Wanna print really exotic looking thing

I'm planning of printing some really exotic and great looking Playing Cards. Can someone here be kind enough to please point to some site where they have (preferably) a variety of really exotic looking fronts and backs of such deck(s) in high resolution - that's a necessity. And yes, I am bothering ye good-guys at RD only after spending quite a lot of time on Google, while there of course got nothing that could suit my purpose. I'm hoping surely one of you may know of any site(s), or at least a couple of digital images of (necessarily high resolution - especially meant for do-it-yourselfers to copy).

P.S.: BTW, recently some wiki-user remarked that my wiki signature (the "Jon Ascton" appearing in dark green colour ) is causing problems (according to that chap it is the fonts within.) Now, he even gave me new wikicode to make adjustments. Please let me know if it's really so ? Please look if the browser you're using is showing any error message etc. when my signature is displayed. Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

After all that time and effort spent on Google you must certainly be aware of the complexity of playing card design. There is a rather non-intuitive phenomenon associated with perception of scale distanciating distantiating the design phase from the end product. --Askedonty (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Playing card with many interesting links, and this search gives a plethora of card images. There is also a List of playing card manufacturers. In the UK the Worshipful Company of Makers of Playing Cards can be contacted via their website. The OP's signature displays in white text on a dark green block inside a box. DroneB (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Askedonty, thanks for the new word "distanciation/ing". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In truth, it may be a bit puffy a notion [19]. Notions of "thinness" and "thickness" like in there may have helped my keyboard slipping to it ( imagining those scales, out of bounds, I mean, seemingly lost without their boundaries, is frightening me much in my nightmares ) . --Askedonty (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You should consider using vector files rather than rasterized files. See this category on commons. - Nunh-huh 23:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The earliest population projections

This 1930 article titled "A Nation of Elders in the Making" made population projections for the United States of America up to the year 2000:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JTIOCWUCpc8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=%22A+Nation+of+Elders+in+the+Making%22&source=bl&ots=xhs7FJQsCO&sig=qmOqlVLt42kPmYcIFGypRZbvx0M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfqIvvrMXdAhXplFQKHRuVAnoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22A%20Nation%20of%20Elders%20in%20the%20Making%22&f=false

However, what I'm curious about is when the earliest population projections were made. For instance, have there been any population projections made during the 19th century? What about the 18th century? Also, what about before the 18th century? Futurist110 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Malthus, 1798, An Essay on the Principle of Population. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Even better, check out Demography#History, which says people have thought about this since the Ancient World, and links to lots of names. John Graunt's 1662 book looks interesting; [20] Chapter XII predicts an increase in the number of burials in London due to both populationa growth and immigration, for example. But several much earlier writers are also listed. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Look up Washington DC in a paper Encyclopedia Britannica. The introduction says L'Enfant designed it in 1791 to be good enough for a population of x hundred thousand and country of y (200? 500?) million even though America had only a 4 million people at the time. I forgot the numbers but one of those won't be reached for centuries or at least decades after 2018. They haven't made paper Britannicas in like 11 years, look now before they take them out of your local library. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Benjamin Franklin wrote a notable essay in 1751 titled "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc." which was cited by Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and several others in their later works. --Jayron32 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There was somewhat of a lack of precise information about existing populations (much less future ones) until the first censuses were held -- 1790 in the U.S., 1801 in the U.K... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Census#Historical censuses indicate that you're only off by a few thousand years. --Jayron32 15:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The United Kingdom with Ireland came into existence on 1 January 1801 and the first census followed a few months later. Did they have censuses in Ireland and Scotland before then? People only became interested in census-taking in the eighteenth century when governments feared that the rapid increase in population would mean it might not be able to feed itself. There was a disastrous famine in Ireland early in the nineteenth century. The Domesday Book was not about numbering people but heads of livestock in the context of listing the value of land holdings. 92.31.140.53 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- Obviously I was referring to the English-speaking world. However, the majority of pre-1790 censuses (including the Domesday Book) were conducted for purposes of taxation, and did not arrive at a single number representing the total population of a jurisdiction, since such wasn't necessary or useful to the taxation system which then existed...

92.31.140.53 -- as you can see at Census Act 1800 there had been some earlier limited-purpose efforts. 1801 was the first "census of the general population" (i.e. systematic overall headcount) in England, Wales, and Scotland (see Census in the United Kingdom). AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, when I find such a long URL, I like to strip it to the essentials: https://books.google.com/books?id=JTIOCWUCpc8C&pg=PA235 —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your responses here, everyone! Futurist110 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences

Is Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences a legitimate academic publication? Is "Ambassador Otto F. von Feigenblatt Ed.D. Ph.D." a legitimate academic? Did he really receive the "President's Lifetime Achievement Award for Education from both President's [sic] Barack Obama and Donald Trump" as his website claims?[21] 50.81.143.144 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing quite a few accolades, honors, photos with dignitaries, (etc.) for him; his credentials seem legit. I couldn't find an independent source for the (US) Presidential award, but I did find: Thaçi, President of the Republic of Kosovo - Hashim. "President Thaçi decorates Professor Otto von Feigenblatt with the title "Honorary Ambassador" of Kosovo". President of the Republic of Kosovo. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"Feigenblatt" is the common german term for the leaf of a fig tree, that is widely used in classic art to concealing the genitals in paintings and on sculptures. No one in Europa would carry such a name, nomatter what additional "von" "von der" "zu" is used infront of some location or nobel house (which usually comes down to some location again)name. There is certainly no place named "Feigenblatt" in any country that used or uses german language. That name shouts out "i am fake" with a megaphone to anyone who knows the german language well enough to have some conversation about historic art. --Kharon (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. I was beginning to wonder myself -- at best I believed that his LinkedIn profile, etc. was a bit (shall we say) "padded". Digging a little deeper I came across this article (in Albanian) and had Google translate (here). ... the title translates as How did Otto von Feignblatt, Lutfi Hazir and Hashim Thaci deceive them? -- subtitled -- Who is Otto von Feigenblatt and how did he become the Ambassador of Kosovo?. Very interesting, indeed. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC) ←(aka: 2606:A000...) ... I'm tempted to add more, but BLP rules apply here as well. Let's just say (in response to the OP's query) that his verifiable academic credentials extend to being a High School teacher in Florida.

BTW, the fig leaf metaphor also works on this side of the planet. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet the Oxford Dictionary of Surnames lists Feigenblatt along with Feige, Feigenbaum and Figueroa among other cognate forms. —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say the assertion that "no one in Europa would carry such a name" is careless, for not calling it silly. German Wikipedia has some famous Herr Feingenblatt: [see here].31.4.136.202 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• That "Otto Federico José von Feigenblatt" is one-and-the-same as this "Ambasador Otto F. von Feigenblatt". —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks to me like a ghostwriting service:[22] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 19

Does Katharine Gorka still work for the US Department of Homeland Security?

Does Katharine Gorka still work for the US Department of Homeland Security? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.143.144 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Her LinkedIn profile indicates she does. --Jayron32 16:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

She made an important speech in Washington in June [23]. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What was the tallest structure before Egyptian pyramids?

Pyramid of Djoser says it's immediate predecessor was a 28 foot Jericho tower built in 8000 BC but surely some of those things at the center of Mesopotamian city-states were taller? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Assuming it actually existed, the Tower of Babel may have been taller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Genesis doesn't give a height, so this is highly speculative. Are you basing this on extra-canonical scriptures? As the article discusses in detail, if the Tower was a real structure it was most likely the ziggurat Etemenanki. Alternately, it's quite likely, as with many myths, that it's a fictional structure inspired by the actual ziggurats and/or other large structures of antiquity. The point of most myths is to convey a moral or lesson, not to relate literal history. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Mental Floss includes Göbekli Tepe on the speculative list of contenders:[24]. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• The OP refers to "those things at the center of Mesopotamian city-states". I'm speculating he's referring to a Ziggurat, though I cannot be sure. Presuming he is, the oldest extant ziggurat is probably at Chogha Zanbil, which dates to C 1250 BCE, or like 1500 years newer than the Djoser pyramid. The oldest true ziggurats that we know (now destroyed) would have dated to around the time of the Ziggurat of Ur, which was built between 2100-2000 BCE, or 600-700 years after the Djoser pyramid. There's possibly an older ziggurat-like structure in Konar Sandal, eastern Iran, which also dates to "late third millennium BCE", which is younger than Djoser. The precursors to ziggurats date to around 4000 BCE, but these were basically piles of dirt with a flattened top. For example, there is Tepe Sialk, which predate the Djoser pyramid (the ziggurat-like structure at Tepe Sialk dates from around 3000 BCE, or 300 or so years older than the Djoser pyramid), though with some of these structures the line between a pile of dirt and a building gets a bit fuzzy, there are many sources that indicate that calling the thing at Tepe Sialk a "ziggurat" or even a "structure" is controversial (see [25] for example), and the dating of said structure to as early as 3000 BCE is also not widely accepted. I can't find any evidence of any agreed-upon ziggurat or similar structure which is probably older than Djoser. So no. They are probably not older. --Jayron32 01:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it very murky before the mid-27th century BCE then? Maybe it's even unclear which continent the Step Pyramid took the record from? Everyone seems to agree after that, perhaps because Egyptian pyramids survived (mostly), held the record long (2650 to 1220) and pharaoh lists would show if any are undiscovered. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    Everything from 5000 years ago is pretty damned murky, I can only say that, of structures we know about, there aren't any definitively older than Djoser that were taller than it. There's a lot of maybes, but anything we know that was taller is definitely not older, and anything that we know is older is definitely not taller. --Jayron32 15:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you asked for "structure" and "tallest" instead of "building" and "highest", i assume Petroglyphes count too. Some are so old that the pyramids seem modern in comparison (up to 200 000 years old) and some are so "tall" (27 Km²) that they clearly where the "tallest" structures till the chinese started building their Great wall which wont be topped for a while. --Kharon (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In English we would usually say longest or widest if we were thinking of petroglyphs. And highest can mean the ranking where every house in Tibet and West Kansas beats Burj Khalifa. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Petroglyphes are the carvings on the surface of rocks. Your "200 000 years old petroglyphes" are not really datable, few metres tall, carvings on a 200 000 years old and 27 km long (not tall), basaltic rock formation. And tallness can't be mesured in square kilometres (=km², lower case) anyway 194.174.73.80 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Petroglyphs can be dated, but you're right that none are 200,000 years old - our article states the oldest claimed petroglyph is dated to ~40,000 years ago. Anyway, there are several methods available for estimating how long ago a rock surface was freshly exposed by a carving, based on weathering and varnish. See [26] for instance. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Petroglyphs would not really be expected to exist before the rise of behavioral modernity, which includes fully symbolic human behavior (though of course there is some controversy about the exact dating and degree of abruptness of the beginning of behavioral modernity). AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

What I said: estimating how long ago = not really datable 194.174.73.80 (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero

September 20

Older US flags with newer stars

I read in a magazine article that antique US flags are dated by counting the number of stars and looking up when the US had exactly that many states. But on the antique flags I've seen, the stars are fabric patches, and from what I've read the arrangement of the stars wasn't standardized. So it would have been possible to update an older flag by adding more stars. Do any antique flags exist that are known to have been updated by adding stars, or whose age is in dispute because of that possibility? NeonMerlin 11:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Flags for the U.S. Navy were standardized as early as 1818, but general usage with respect to star arrangements was rather loose for a long time after that. The original Old Glory flag was updated by sewing additional stars onto it... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A useful link might be Physical Characteristics of Antique (US) Flags which discusses the variables. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's an interesting chart on the same web site. You'll need to zoom in on the PDF (or print it on very large paper) to view it properly. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Who was "X" - Colonel Repington's War Office mole?

In David Lloyd George's War Memoirs, we read "[Colonel Repington's] diaries, where he records the interviews he had from time to time with William Robertson and his principal coadjutator, the Director of Military Operations, Sir Frederick Maurice, and some mysterious person in the confidence of the War Office, who is referred to by Repington as "X", show how complete was his collaboration with the General Staff". Do we know who "X" was? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This source doesn't come out and directly say it, but names three War Office co-conspirators rather than your two. Besides William Robertson and Frederick Maurice, it cites a third person Maurice Hankey, which is circumstantial evidence that X may be Hankey. --Jayron32 15:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. Reading further in War Memoirs there is a strong hint that it was Derby. "...when so influential a personage as Lord Derby, holding such a key position as that of Secretary of State for War, by letter and talk expressed sympathy with Haig's and Robertson's stubborn opposition to the Cabinet's policy, they naturally thought they could rely upon him to help them to thwart it and at any rate to prevent any serious mishap occurring to themselves if they committed their fortunes to a thwarting intrigue". DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

References

September 22

What are the problems with assuming that Paleolithic humans lived around 70 years, just because modern hunter-gatherers do?

A paper on the longevity of modern hunter-gatherers indicates that they usually live around 70 years:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.737.7899&rep=rep1&type=pdf

What are the problems with assuming that Paleolithic humans lived around 70 years, just because modern hunter-gatherers do? Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

From where do you derive that there is a problem in assuming that Paleolithic humans lived around 70 years? Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The context of their existence is different. For example, consider the Pleistocene megafauna that existed then, versus the animals of today. Perhaps modern hunter-gatherers have refined their methods over the course of time, thereby improving their longevity. On the other hand, conditions may now be more difficult for hunter-gatherers, thereby reducing their longevity. Hence, making an assumption about the average lifespan of Paleolithic humans, based on modern estimates, is problematic.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Yellow_Sunstreaker -- I'm having difficulty reading the document you linked, but I wonder if it really states that hunter-gatherers leading traditional lifestyles have a life expectancy at birth of 70 years (something which is almost impossible without modern medicine). Anyway, the main difference between hunter-gatherers now and before the rise of agriculture is that hunter-gatherers today only survive quasi-autonomously in marginal environments (the arctic, the Kalahari, deep jungles), whereas before agriculture, they were found in all ecological environments. AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If you believe people died at 30–40 before modern medicine, you're wrong. This myth seems to be fairly widespread because that is roughly the average human life expectancy at birth without modern medicine. The biggest contributor to this by far is child mortality; without modern medicine a lot of humans don't survive to adulthood, thus lowering the average. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I doubt that the linked PDF (which I can't read on this computer) states that hunter-gatherers leading traditional lifestyles have a life expectancy at birth of 70 years, so it would be nice to know what it does actually say... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The article states in its summary of the results: "Post-reproductive longevity is a robust feature of hunter-gatherers and of the life cycle of Homo sapiens. (...) The average modal age of adult death for hunter-gatherers is 72 with a range of 68–78 years." It also states that over two thirds of people who reach sexual maturity live to 'grandparental age', which lasts an average of 20 years. The study is based on "mortality profiles of all extant hunter-gatherers for which sufficient high-quality demographic data exist." - Lindert (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Up to Elizabethan times in England the average lifespan was 30 or 40 years. Then a huge improvement in public health pushed it rapidly up. 92.31.140.53 (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, mostly because of a) child death and b) women dying in childbirth. For adult males, and for females past reproductive age, people tended to die in their 70s and 80s. This is noted above, and is why you have to CAREFULLY define your terms here. If you saw an average adult in Britain in Elizabethan times, it was a good chance they would make it to 70. There were not (excepting years of the Plague) large numbers of adults dying off in their 30s. --Jayron32 17:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it says that if they made it to age 45 they would most likely live to be roughly 70. It's getting to age 45 that is fairly difficult. But if a person could make it past all the childhood diseases and didn't die from accident or injury during their prime adult years (such as being gored by a wild boar during the hunt or succumbing to difficulties of childbirth), they had a good chance of living another 20-30 years.--Khajidha (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

From The Ordnance Survey Atlas of Great Britain (1982, page 152):

The dynamic character and the vicissitudes of life in medieval Britain should be stressed, for the economic and human geographies of regions and settlements were continually changing. There was a decline in the population of England from six or seven million in 1348 to about 2.75 million in the early 16th century with changes of a similar order in Wales and Scotland. This was mainly due to the effects of epidemic and infectious diseases. The best-known epidemic was the Black Death, which affected Britain from 1348 to 1350, though there were many other epidemics including tuberculosis, measles and smallpox. In some respects the decrease of population which began in the late 14th century was related to a weakening of a feudal mode of production, and paved the way for the early advent of rural and urban capitalism, culminating in the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions. It has been suggested that in 1509, when Henry VIII succeeded to the throne of England, Britain was still medieval in many aspects: by the end of the Tudor dynasty this medievalism was rapidly disappearing, and nearly all traces of it had vanished by 1700.

Page 154:

The 16th and 17th centuries witnessed widespread change of an economic and political nature. In England population trends saw a continuing recovery, probably beginning after about 1470; in 1541 the total was about three million, increasing to four million by 1600, to 5.5 million by 1651, followed by a slight decline before further increase in the 18th century.

I just found out that Jethro Tull was an agriculturist. 92.31.140.53 (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact, modern H-G's have problems that their paleolithic ancestors didn't. Modern H-G's are marginalized - in many case to the very edges of habitable areas. It's basically the same problem that you see in wildlife conservation, where each problem seems to multiply with all the others: exposure to pollution, lack of resources, lack of physical space, interrupted migrations, exposure to unfamiliar diseases, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Project business cases

In large programmes containing many projects, does each level require its own business case or is it only the top level? Clover345 (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

"require" is a to strong term. In history some absolute rulers chose to keep everything in check themselves or leave just a few trusted people in charge of many "sublevels" of the gouvernement. That worked out for them apparently, since they did'nt change their power structure. Today large projects are much more split up, because we are capable to estimate much better what management structures are most effective, because in history management was just an "art" of the mighty. Today its an established academic science. --Kharon (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There where a few "early adopters" in the history of management as science tho. Best known are probably the Chinese with their tradition of Confucianism, which is still very respected in academic management science today. (See Confucianism#In modern times). --Kharon (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction between two articles regarding start of strip mining

Quoting Economy_of_England_in_the_Middle_Ages#Expansion_of_mining:

By the end of the 12th century, the older method of acquiring iron ore through strip mining was being supplemented by more advanced techniques…

Quoting Surface_mining:

Surface mining, including strip mining, open-pit mining and mountaintop removal mining, is …

Surface mining began in the mid-sixteenth century

The two articles seem to contradict each other regarding the period in which strip mining was in use. 79.178.38.36 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the second article is somewhat US-centric (and ideally ought to be expanded in scope by editors knowledgeable in the field, which I am decidedly not), and the statement is cited to a source specifically about mining in Appalachia. It may be, then, that either the source, or the article, or both, intend the statement to refer only to mining in North America. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.75 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

We also have Mining and metallurgy in medieval Europe, does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Where was Kalimuskaya?

In relation to Allied intervention in the Russian Far East during the First World War, a despatch from the Japanese Government dated 19th May 1918 says "[Ataman Semenoff] is continuing his advance encouraged by the success he has so far achieved over the Bolsheviks, and, thanks to the continuous enlistment of the Cossacks in his detachment, its strength has already reached 5,000 and is growing stronger every day. He is now menacing Kalimuskaya…" I have been unable to find any trace of Kalimuskaya on Google except in this telegram. Where was it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's ultimately an OCR mistake for Kalininskaya? There are several places with that name...although none of them seem to be in the Russian Far East. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had a similar thought. There's a Kalinskaya mine near Sverdlovsk, but again, that's quite a haul from the Transbaikal area. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not an OCR mistake, unless David Lloyd George was using OCR in the mid-1930's when writing his War Memoirs. The telegram is also quoted in Mirage Of Power Pt3, by C. J. Lowe & M. L. Dockrill, Volume 5 of Foreign Policies of the Great Powers DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's also unlikely anything was named after Kalinin in May 1918. Still, it could be a misspelling/misreading that made it into Lloyd George's memoirs. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

He was pretty good at keeping papers (tho' it was Sylvester and Stevenson who kept them in order), and the quotation in Lowe & Dockrill is complete and taken from Cabinet Office archives. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Just an idle thought, but it seems likely that the Japanese military would have transliterated the original name from Cyrillic into Katakana, and then transliterated again into Roman letters. The scope for error might be enormous. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Karymskoye, Karymskaya then. 77.69.25.66 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be make geographic sense, and fits well with Alansplodge's surmise. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect - and it's not far from Semenoff's headquarters in Chita. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

September 23

Is Mexico on the verge of defaulting on parts it’s national debt before Andrés López Obrador take office ?

All bonds issued by Mexico with maturity scheduled for 2018 are traded at a huge discount of their face value (I mean whatever currency or stock exchange used here’s an example). For reference, they are traded at only ¼ of Venezualian bonds discount value which is rated as being on selective default.

This situation seems to be ongoing since the 2000s when the bonds where issued. I failed to find any information on why those bonds won’t be paid back.

What can explain such future default since the bonds where all issed after 1982 ? 77.136.40.166 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Investors obviously think there's a risk of default greater than that of some other sovereign issuers. They can't see the future any more than you. They don't know Mexico will default. Additionally, many of the investors probably are outside of Mexico, so the bond price reflects currency risk as well as default risk. On the topic of Venezuela, a brief Google News search for "venezuela bonds" seems to indicate that many buying the bonds are speculators who acknowledge the high risk but think there's a chance they'll come out ahead in a debt restructuring or similar event. Without these speculators the price would be even lower. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the usual reason for buying such bonds is to make money from the interest they earn during their lifetime. Since that lifetime is now virtually up, buying (for example) a 2018-maturing $1000-dollar bond at face value now would return to the buyer very little more than $1000 in a very short time, so there'd be little point in the purchase. The only sellers will be those who desperately need some capital right now, so are forced to sell the bonds at a discount that will yield the buyers an acceptable return for their money. Is this analysis wrong? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.75 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the posts above are partially missing the point of the OP's question. Bonds aren't something I've dealt with much so while I have some idea of what the coupon rate, yield curve etc mean, I don't quite understand the figures in the above link. In particular what does a trading value quoted as ~4.47% mean? The obvious thought is that it's a percent of the face value except that the value is so low. But if I look at German bonds [27] which are newer and have a value quoted at ~100% and the aforementioned Venezuela bonds older but with a longer term [28] and a value quoted at 22.930%.

So German bonds are actually trading at about of very slightly above their face value. If I want €1000 (I assume these are Euro denominated) I would have to pay more than €1000. This isn't that surprising considering the confidence people may have in the German government etc. Likewise for Venezuela, given the strong risk of default, people aren't willing to buy it except at a strong discount to their face value. Other sources mentioning Venezuelan bonds similarly mention them trading at e.g. 28 cents to the dollar [29]. This may be higher than it could be because of speculators etc. It's significantly higher than these Mexican bonds, as the OP said 4x or more.

But none of that really explains why the Mexican bonds are so low. I mean sure the second IP is right that people will only get the face value back, but I don't see how that explains such a low value. Some discount sure, but if you had the money to throw around, why wouldn't you buy a bunch of these figuring that there's a decent chance you'd get 20x back in a few months? I'm not an investor or speculator but it seems to me even 50% discount off the face value is a little high. (I.E. 2x return is good enough given the risk etc.)

While the first IP is right about all those, I wouldn't be surprised if the OP is aware of all of them. I was when I first saw this question before any replies (didn't reply because I couldn't figure it out). Investors obviously don't know Mexico is going to default, but if these bonds really are trading at ~4.5% of the face value, this surely suggests they either think there's a very good chance they will for these bonds. They're giving it a far far higher chance than even Venezuela for many of their bonds. Or alternatively, they think the Mexican peso which I assume these bonds are denominated in is going to utterly collapse. Or currency or capital controls will be implemented. Or some combination of these.

But why do they think so? There's nothing the OP or me are aware of, nor specified above as to why investors feel so, which I think is ultimately the OP's question. Efficient-market hypothesis and all that, it would seem that there should be some info that is somewhat public knowledge as to why these bonds are trading so low. The alternative is that I and I think the OP have misunderstood what the above site is saying, or it's broken.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I’m original poster, I would also had that Mexico bonds for 2115 maturity are traded are 80% of face value : something reasonable for a 100 years maturity bond. So it seems there something specific about 2018 bonds.

Yes, the face 4.5% value is correct for those bonds : it really means that if paid back, you could get 1 million with only 30000€ in less than 3 months. Yet, Mexico doesn’t have any kind of capital control, nor did I found information about if the state is insolvent. 2001:861:3A00:61C0:81B4:8EC6:5F43:C721 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Latin Americans of British descent in the Great War

David Lloyd George devotes a chapter of his War Memoirs to the contribution to the war effort made by the British Empire. In it he also mentions people of British descent who had settled under foreign flags. "It is estimated that about 12,000 came from Latin America... Numbers of these were sons or grandsons of former British emigrants, and though born to another citizenship, were proud to claim their British inheritance, even though it was an inheritance of sacrifice. These Latin-Americans of British stock fought well. Among the decorations they won were three V.C.'s and 188 M.C.'s" I would be interested to know who the VC's were, and (more ambitiously) the MC's. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess my process of "clicking on every one of them and looking at their birthplace" isn't completely conclusive, but none of the people in our list of First World War Victoria Cross recipients were born in Latin America/South America (the rest of Lloyd George's quote mentions soldiers from Argentina). There are a few from the West Indies, but not for the First World War. But of course it's possible that they were born elsewhere and were considered Latin American for some other reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Many of the settlers in Argentina would have been Welsh, if that helps in your research. I have no idea if any of them were awarded the VC. See Y Wladfa. --Jayron32 13:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

See also Great European immigration wave to Argentina. Although the British were not prominent in this, there were some (mostly Welsh, Scottish and Irish rather than English), particularly associated with the building of Argentina's Railway system, in addition to Y Wladfa mentioned by Jayron. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.75 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

See also English Argentines and British Chilean. A lengthy Google search failed to find any WWI VCs in that connection. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a whole bunch of articles on British Latin Americans, but I still can't find any who received VCs either. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

September 24

Request for 17th century painting

Hi folks, I hope I've come to the right place to ask my question. The article Battle of Höchst mentions (unsourced) that the painter Peter Snayers made a painting of that battle. I'd like to use that painting to illustrate the article. I googled Snayers and Höchst and found nothing. So I hoped someone with more experience in this than me could perhaps look it up in some online catalog and verify its existence. Perhaps even the museum where it hangs today could be identified, and, if I'm lucky, their webpage might already have a photograph online that we could use. If this is not the right place for such a request, please tell me where I should ask. Nice day. 2.247.242.240 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That blurb was added 9 years ago,[30] by an editor who last edited in 2011. They supposedly got it from the German Wikipedia. Maybe someone there will know something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I followed that lead and traced the info to an edit from 2006, only to find that the editor's account has been deactived for several years now. Anyhow, there was this little additional detail: "a monumental painting hanging in a Brussels museum". Should I ask/look somewhere else or bury the idea? 2.247.241.15 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have time, you could try contacting either http://www.kmkg-mrah.be/fr/collections-0 or https://historia-europa.ep.eu/en --Lgriot (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I find this book, which seems to be the source for the statement in the German article, almost verbatim. Interestingly, it says "in the museum in Brussels", not "in a museum...". This book also mentions a representation of the battle of Hoechst, as well as this article from Die Gartenlaube. Getting closer: The Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium has several paintings by Snayers, among them "The battle of Thionville", formerly titled "The battle of Hoechst"! There's another example a painting that was retitled, so there seems to have been an issue with identifying the battles that were depicted. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Good digging, Wrongfilter. Looks like a historical misattribution by the museum people that has even made its way into literature and only got fixed recently. Interesting. I assume that Snayers' Höchst painting never existed in the first place. Will erase the claim from Battle of Höchst and mention Wrongfilter's findings on the talk page. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Btw, if one of you cares you might want to delete the other misattributed painting from Commons, to avoid future confusion. It has already been superseded by a copy under the correct title. I assume I can't do that, as I have no account. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nominated it for deletion myself. Cool, didn't know you could do that anonymously. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Another misattribution by museum people - this miniature c:File:Maome.jpg was uploaded under edit summary http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/images/3/0_01.jpg. It is in the catalogue as Le prophète Muhammad interdit l'intercalation d'une mois supplémentaire dans l'année lunaire (The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year), [31] (page 37). That was done in the open (the picture is of a man preaching in a mosque to a congregation of six) and the Prophet was addressing thousands of pilgrims while seated on his camel. The misattribution has found its way into a number of Wikipedia articles and from there into the wider world, to the great distress of billions of Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.29.160 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

78.145.29.160, I truly have no idea who you are and why you have posted this here, but if you are so greatly distressed why don't you go and are bold about this, instead of preaching here? What do you hope to achieve, besides making a mockery of my attempt to demonstrate that IP users can behave responsibly and be an asset to WP? ;) 2.247.240.90 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If you know a way of removing this Islamic calendar#Prohibiting Nasī’ please let me in on the secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.29.160 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure: per wp:BRD you would erase what you deem wrong and ideally state your reasons on the article's talk page. Then I would probably revert it und quote the Holy Qur'an, sura At-Tawba as a source. And jokingly ask you if you would doubt that source (and thus commit shirk). (No offense to your religious feelings intended.) Then you could reply and we would discuss the matter until there is wp:consensus for your point of view or your change gets discarded. Good luck :) 2.247.240.90 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament

In the case of R v Haddock reported as "Is it a Free Country?" in Herbert, 1935, we read the words of Lord Light, LCJ "People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament". Does this still hold true today? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You realize that is fiction, right? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Herbert used humour to make serious points about the law. I was trying to ask the question in a way that was, however inadequately, reminiscent of his work. I'm sorry you didn't get the joke. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Bhutan officially has an index of Gross National Happiness. I would assume that having a bit of fun is part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a net national happiness? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This search on the British parliamentary web site finds no laws containing the word "fun". However, while the site includes some laws from before the modern computer era, it does not include all of them. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the preferred official term is "recreational".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about having the law require us to have fun. That sounds a bit too much like in Flash Gordon 'All creatures will make merry. Under pain of death' Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Here in the US, we hold that the “pursuit of happiness” is an inalienable right... however, the achievement of happiness is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • And that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah the Declaration, where all men are created equal and slavery was legal the next 89.5 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      • And where King Georgie Porgie is told how things are gonna be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, I like that part. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of Parliament banning fun, back in 1644: [32] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

September 25

Who was "Bimbash" Stewart VC?

In Raymond Asquith: Life and Letters, edited by John Jolliffe, Raymond Asquith twice mentions a "Bimbash" Stewart VC. In a letter dated 4th July 1898 he says "...Well, well: then of course there is Bimbash [Stewart]: He was at Khartoum with Gordon, and is only 35: but his hair is grey and his mind rather obscene: he is too beautiful for words: a head like Julius Caesar and talks well: I have made great friends with him: he confirms all my prejudices about the General. But how beautiful he is and how well he rides and how brave!" (page40). Later, on 15th August 1899 he writes "The little man [Edward Levy-Lawson] is also attended by Bimbash Stewart V.C. - probably the bravest man now alive and certainly the wickedest: if he had stayed in the Egyptian army he would have been Sirdar instead of Kitchener - a peer with a fat income and an Oxford degree instead of a wandering adventurer eking out a precarious livelihood by trading on the good nature of gullible plutocrats and cheating his fellow men whenever the occasion offers" (page 56). Bimbash is obviously Bimbashi. I have been unable to find out who he was - the only Stewart I have been able to find with a VC died in 1868 after swallowing a sword. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The only Bimbash Stewart I can find is Harry (King) Stewart, a British Army officer, who acquired the nickname as "Bimbash", which is an Ottoman military rank, based on his campaigns in the middle east. See [33], [34], [35], [36]. I have no idea if he did or did not win the Victoria Cross, but there is a starting point for your research. --Jayron32 11:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that - armed with your info I managed to find an obituary in the Old Shirburnian from March 1907. No VC (Asquith did write in a rather over-dramatic and exaggerating manner), but a CMG and he was at Tel-el-Kebir and Abu Klea and certainly seems to have been a dashing sort. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The Metamorphosis

Our article mentions the issues raised by translating this work - and also provides a list of the attempts at translation. Have any of them been identified as being particularly effective or better than the others? Is there a "best" translation available? Matt Deres (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's bound to be a matter of opinion which is the best. The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (2000) mentions an early translation of The Metamorphosis by A. L. Lloyd, which it says was "superseded" by the translation of Willa and Edwin Muir. It says of the Muirs' translation of the collected works that,

These classic and often reprinted translations have been consistently praised, especially for the quality of the English style, with Ronald Gray remarking that the Muirs "turn[ed] Kafka's work into an English so natural that one might not suspect that he had written in any other language"...For all their brilliance and continuing popularity, the Muir translations have two drawbacks. First, it has become increasingly clear that they are not always accurate...And second, Brod's idiosyncratic original German editions of Kafka's manuscripts, on which the Muirs' translations were based, have since been superseded.

Later translations of The Metamorphosis by Malcolm Pasley, J. A. Underwood, Stanley Corngold, and Joachim Neugroschel/Stanley Appelbaum are said to be accurate but no other critical judgement is given. At any rate it's clear that there are more English versions than our article knows of. --Antiquary (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

In 2015 The Guardian offered a survey of translations of The Metamorphosis. Again it's just a personal opinion, of course, but the writer seems to especially like the versions of the Muirs, Joachim Neugroschel, Susan Bernofsky, and John R. Williams. Some others get plus marks for good introductions or accompanying essays. --Antiquary (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Why was Eden Avon?

Why did Anthony Eden take the title Earl of Avon? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but I just learned that there is an extant Baronet of Maryland, being Eden's nephew, John Eden, Baron Eden of Winton who is also 5th Baronet of Maryland. I didn't know there were still any extant North American titles. Fascinating. --Jayron32 02:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The answer to your question by the way, is almost certainly because Eden represented Warwick and Leamington (UK Parliament constituency) in Parliament, which lies on the River Avon in Warwickshire, and included Stratford-on-Avon, perhaps the most famous of the Avon-named places in England, for obvious reasons. --Jayron32 02:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Not because he could then say, "Ding, dong. Avon calling"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

September 26

Does the UK need Gibraltar?

From a mere egoistic, pragmatic, strategic perspective, does the UK still need Gibraltar for anything? What interests does the UK defend when it defends Gibraltar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.73.124 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It has an interest in respecting the will of the Gibraltar people, which have voted, overwhelmingly, (like 95%+) to remain under British Sovereignty, over multiple generations. See Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 1967 and Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002. It defends Gibraltar because its people are under British Sovereignty, wish to remain so, and the government has a right to defend people under its sovereignty and the territory they live on. --Jayron32 03:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Need" is a subjective determination. The Ref Desk is not for debate. Sticking purely to objective facts, its geopolitical importance should be evident from a glance at a map: it controls the Straits of Gibraltar and therefore passage between the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Also under its current status, it's a British Overseas Territory; uniquely, Gibraltar is the only such Territory part of the European Union. Being an EU member but not having many of the laws, taxes, etc. found in larger EU states makes it an attractive location for offshore banking, tax havens, and so on. Of course, this could all change fairly soon, and the status of Gibraltar is a significant issue in negotiations. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Although those financial advantages are to the benefit of the territory and don't enrich the UK as far as I can tell. If the Gibraltarians wanted to be Spanish, they have had the opportunity to say so at the ballot box as Jayron says above. The independence of the territory is not an option under the Treaty of Utrecht as I understand it. Alansplodge (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)