Humanities desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 5

Funding anti-doping agencies

How does the World Anti-Doping Agency, the United States Anti-Doping Agency, and many anti-doping agencies all over the world operate? Do they accept financial contributions?2603:7000:8101:58A1:ECA9:D03A:3BE6:B0B2 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funding is discussed in the articles you linked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wasn't anything about how the aforementioned agencies are funded.2603:7000:8101:58A1:4154:50D3:D0E1:D2C4 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the USA "it is partly funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee (USOC)". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the rest of the other anti-doping agencies all over the world?2603:7000:8101:58A1:C86C:E0C5:3812:D28A (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely to be membership fees. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, again in the article, "Initially funded by the International Olympic Committee, WADA receives half of its budgetary requirements from them, with the other half coming from various national governments." Maybe the OP is allergic to reading the actual articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timing question here

Hi, this article says Influenza vaccine ``The intradermal vaccine was not available during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 influenza seasons.[14][20][21][22]`` -- why not?

Posted question at talk page, as linked in the heading above.

I checked sources, but they're too confusing to see the answer to this.

Thanks --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 11:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gryllida, [14] does not contain the word “intradermal”. [20] is a dead link. [21] does not contain the word “intradermal”. [22] instructs not to administer the class of “Influenza Virus Vaccine Inactivated” intradermally, without mention of specific seasons. So it doesn’t look as if those sources support the sentence and so it should come out of the article. (Taking the lack of a reference to an intradermal option to mean there was no intradermal vaccine available is original research.)

What you’d need for Wikipedia to make a statement about the general availability of intradermal seasonal flu vaccines in a particular season (worldwide or in a particular country) is a news article that makes the claim. I haven’t had any luck finding one, but perhaps another volunteer here can. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down a New York World article

{crossposted from WP:REX) I'm looking for an article from 1865 in the New York World. the secondary source I have a picture of gives some clues to the article: A reporter visited the Pompey stone at the Albany Institute of History and Art with a "Dr. O'Callaghan" (presumably Edmund Bailey O'Callaghan), Henry C. Murphy, and a James Hall. It includes the quote "It was found very carefully put away in a glass case and covered with a dust that indicated that for some years, at least, its quiet had not been disturbed." and "It must be remembered that this stone was found when there was no pecuniary inducement for the forging of such relics." That's all I know, I no longer have the secondary source. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Can anyone track this article down? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been just called "The World" at that period (pre 1881)? If this is it [1], Library of Congress and New York Public Library have it in bound volumes and microfilm, but I can't find a digitized version. Some of the volunteers here have access to newspaper databases so fingers crossed you do get an answer. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main picture of Alan Turing

Hi,

Why the main picture for Alan Turing's article is him being only 16 years old? He didn't accomplish anything important at that age. I think it would be more relevant to use a picture of him in his 30s (during WW2) or before he died at age 41. What do you think? Ericdec85 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't got a later picture that we can use. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can only use fair use when there's no available picture. Since there is one, that doesn't apply. Blythwood (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly he understood Einstein's theories at that age, which seems like an accomplishment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His appearence didn't actually change very much over the next 25 years. Compare that photo to the portrait on the new £50 note. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image page shows that the source is a website called turingarchive.org. The licensing section states that the photo is in the public domain. Is there really no later photo on that website which is also public domain? --Viennese Waltz 08:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photos held in that archive are listed here. Several are not scanned (and therefore not visible). Of those that are, the only ones clearly superior are a set of eight passport-sized head and shoulder shots, possibly dating to around 1947, about which the site notes:

"Copyright: Reasonable attempts have been made to contact the copyright owner of this document. If you wish to disuss the inclusion of this document on this site, please contact the Archivist at King's College, Cambridge."

This suggests to me that they would not be usable by Wikipedia, but I'm not an expert. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]