Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

October 16[edit]

Tripitaka Koreana during Japanese occupation[edit]

What happened to Tripitaka Koreana during the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945? -- (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It does not appear that anything special happened to them at that time (which is to say, I can't find any additional information about them during that period), however there is some information about them during the Korean War located at Haeinsa. --Jayron32 12:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Canon[edit]

The standard western Bible is comprised of a selection of books known as the Biblical Canon. There are a number of books which were not included, now known as The Apocrypha. The Hebrew Torah is very much similar to the Old Testament of the Bible and so question is, why does the Torah not contain these missing books such as the books of Adam and Eve or the Book of Enoch? Who took these out of the Jewish Canon, when did they do this and why? Were they ever in there? And if not, why not and then how did they get into the Christian Canon before their removal? Thanks All Anton (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Torah is a somewhat imprecise term, I think you want Tanakh, which is the Hebrew religious canon itself. The Torah is often used to refer to only the Pentateuch, but it can also include other works. Anyways, Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to answering your question. See Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. Notable to answering your question is the quote from that article "There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed." The idea that the books were "taken out" of the canon may or may not be accurate; they may have been "in" the canon in some traditions and not others, they may have been added and later removed, or have never been included in the first place. It's complex, and as with any canon, the exact form of the canon evolves and changes over time. --Jayron32 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
And in any case, the Hebrew canon was relatively fixed (anywhere between 150BCE and 200CE, according to our article) long before Christianity did the same (4th century CE, according to this article). So your question really should be why the Christian canon changed the Jewish one, not the other way around. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, one has to consider the purpose of the works in question. The Old Testament and the Tanakh have different purposes, insofar as Christianity is a different religion with different beliefs than Judaism, and as such the exact nature of how the religion views the scriptures can be different, sometimes subtly and sometimes profoundly. In terms of choosing canonical parts for each, there are likely strong theological concerns why early Christians included the deuterocanonical books while many (but by no means all) forms of Judaism does not include them, that is the books are often chosen because the narrative in them supports the theology of the faith in question. Historical or chronological concerns are often secondary to theological ones. --Jayron32 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The traditional Catholic Old Testament is based on the books given greatest prominence by Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews, while the Hebrew Canon is based on decisions made by Aramaic-speaking Rabbis in the Holy Land in the years after the destruction of the Temple (sometimes attributed to a Council of Jamnia). The Aramaic-speaking Jews in the Holy Land would only accept books written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, so that II Maccabees was not even a possibility...
Many of the Jewish religious works of the late BC / early AD period had apocalyptic or gnostic tendencies, and were often chronologically later than most of the books that went into the Alexandrian and Hebrew canons (and so hadn't yet had time to establish themselves as scriptures). The Book of Enoch is interesting in a way, but it promulgates a strange and extravagant mythology, and also advocates for a solar calendar which was completely different from the Jewish religious calendar... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Jewish works with Gnostic tendencies sounds funny to me. If a work is Gnostic, isn't it far enough from Judaism to be no longer Jewish? I'm sure I'm wrong, but that's my initial reaction to the idea. Temerarius (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Gnosticism and Jewish-derived or influenced monotheism were some of the spiritual trends gaining ground in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia during the early centuries A.D. (as traditional mythologies provided little solace to many inhabitants of empires), so it was almost inevitable that they would intertwine and cross-influence to at least some degree. See Mandaeism etc. AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
While strictly speaking, Gnosticism was an early Christian offshoot, at that time those Christians were still Jews, and the influences that created Gnosticism also had an impact on Judaism itself; causing the influence on many traditions of Jewish mysticism, including on Kabbalah. Both the articles on Kabbalah and on Gnosticism mention the connections. --Jayron32 12:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
in what year were all early Christians still Jews? Temerarius (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the Book of Acts, it was at the Council of Jerusalem that it was determined that non-Jews could become Christians without fully converting to Judaism. Non-Jews didn't become predominant in Christianity until after the destruction of the Temple... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the destruction of the Temple led to massive changes to Judaism itself. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
As noted at Jewish Christian, it was not an instantaneous process. The sect began as a variation of Judaism. In the early years, all Christians were already Jews. The Council of Jerusalem, as noted above, is when it was decided that non-Jews could become Christian (strictly speaking, even before the Council of Jerusalem, you didn't need to be Jewish, you just had to be circumcised to be a Christian. The council removed that requirement). However, Jewish Christians didn't instantly stop being Jewish at that instant; and Christianity spread among both Jews and Gentiles for some time; it's just that after the Council, there's a MUCH greater pool of Gentiles than Jews to work with, so over time the faith lost its Jewish cultural connection. --Jayron32 12:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

negative interest rate[edit]

Quite a number of countries are nowadays finding buyers for their bonds yielding real negative interest rate (Switzerland, Germany, France, ... Even Greece !). I looked for a learned explanation of why investors would buy such bonds, instead of just keeping cash. I found nothing more than ″they have to, because of some rule (we cannot actually quote)″. Any hint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you type the phrase "how do negative yield bonds work" into Google, you an astronomical number of good explanations. Take your pick of which one makes more sense to you. It's not hard to find them. This link is the first one of many many many in that search, and it says "Investors are willing to pay a premium—and ultimately take a loss—because they need the reliability and liquidity that government and high-quality corporate bonds provide. Large investors such as pension funds, insurers, and financial institutions may have few other safe places to store their wealth." That is, even at that negative interest rate, the bonds in question are still a better investment than other options; that is taking into account the level of risk and expected gains and losses from putting the money in other vehicles, the negative interest rates still lose less money than do other investments. This is one of those intertwined cause-and-effect things as well; because if no one was buying the negative yield bonds, the sellers would have to raise the rates to a more positive yield to generate interest. If the purchasers of those bonds had better options, they would take them, but they don't, so they've got no other options. Here is yet another good link for you to read. The other thing is that there are rules that require the purchase of these bonds. That is because there are investors that, because of their nature, are only allowed to invest in certain types of investment vehicles, such as pension funds, payroll funds, commercial banks, etc. They are not allowed to invest their money in riskier investments because regulatory agencies want to prevent key institutions, such as those, from going bankrupt through bad investments, and taking the rest of the system down with it. For example, a bank may be required to keep a certain percentage of their money in liquid assets; assets that can be converted to cash essentially on-demand. They may also be prevented from investing in high-risk investments like stocks or "junk bonds" or "mortgage backed securities" that pay higher yields, because the higher risk means they could lose money too! So they are stuck with low-risk, high-liquidity assets, and these negative yield bonds are basically the only thing going. The bank has no option, they have to put their money somewhere, they can't keep it locked in giant vaults. There isn't even enough physical currency to do that! So, it goes into these crappy bonds. --Jayron32 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
the FT link required a subscription. The Bloomberg's is the kind of stuff I already found: interesting (and this one as figures about the amount), but not really explaining. I understand that people don't want to hoard large amount of cash, because of the cost of the security and handling, and the risk to lose it to stealing, fire or whatever; but most of the money is electronic now, isn't it? so they dont really need to store it as banknote. I see a number of options (even when ruling out anything risky):
  • the ECB charge "only" 0.5% for money deposit, would cost less than buying bond with -0.6% yield as they do. All the more so that you cannot expect the ECB price to be kept this low for the next 10 years
    • Besides, the rationale for this ECB price is (if I am right) "I (the ECB) want you to put the money in the economy, to lend it so that people can go to work″, so, depositing it in ECB account or buying negative interest bonds seems to defeat this purpose
  • exchange € for $, buy US T-bonds (still positive), and hedge the exchange rate. Yield of T-bonds are not great, but they would cover the premium for the hedging. If you want security, Dollar and T-bonds seems perfect for just this purpose.
  • give back borrowed money. This include money from shareholders (up to them to get some better investment)
  • stop collecting new money / change business (since the ECB seems to kill this line of business)
  • be "creative" the way they used to be, to collect money out of junk bonds back in the day, but the other way round (that is, turn money into high yield bonds). I don't know how this can be done, but I didn't know how the opposite could be done either, and it was, so, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If those links don't work, I here is another: [1]. as I mentioned already, there are hundreds of different versions you can read. Pick one or two or twelve until you find a good one. --Jayron32 12:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel you may be confused about the ECB deposit facility. This is for banks to deposit money with the central bank [2] [3][4] [5] [6]. It's not something which any random company or person can avail themselves to. BTW "All the more so that you cannot expect the ECB price to be kept this low for the next 10 years" applies both ways. Maybe the rate will be 0% in 10 years. Maybe it will be -1.0% 10 years. Remember that the rate has been negative for about 5 years now and has slowly gotten more negative [7]. In 2014, I'm sure there were some who believed it would be in positive territory by now in 2014. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, looking over his post, it sounds like he's confusing heavily regulated institutional investors like commercial banks and the like, and the average Joe on the street investor who wants to acquire more income through investing. When a large institution like a commercial bank "invests" their assets, what they are really looking for is a place to store those assets. Central banks, like the ECB, provide that storage in the form of short-term bonds. That the bonds pay a negative yield is annoying but unavoidable as the system is set up primarily as a way for banks to store their liquid assets in a safe investment vehicle and not as a means for private investors to grow their own wealth. --Jayron32 16:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I did not know only banks can deposit money to the central bank.
You mean, people are buying at -0.5%, for fear it might be -1% or worse later? I just cannot imagine what this would mean, if I were in the investment business.
But may be the numbers are not that huge? I mean, each fund has a part of its assets that must be keep in cash or cash-like (to be able to seize an opportunity, or whatever), and if the bank charge them to keep the money (which is fair) it may be cheaper to buy this kind of bonds. So maybe the money invested in these bonds is a small part of the total assets, but because the total is big, so is the total in these bonds? In which case, it would not be as surprising as I thought. I have no idea of the amounts: are 13 $Trillion big, when compared to the total assets managers handle?
Well the fact you cannot imagine is one reason why people tend to recommend those unfamiliar seek advice or at least follow some simple rules when investing. As I said, I'm, sure there were some in 2014 who "couldn't imagine" we'd be at -0.5%" and it wouldn't get much worse than -0.1%. Anyway putting that aside, I'm not sure if you quite understand my main point. My main point was you said you said those investing in bonds at -0.6% should just deposit with the central bank at -0.5% because it's a better rate. But even if we put aside the impossibility of most people doing so, a -0.5% short term rate is not necessarily better than a -0.6% long term rate unless you somehow magically know what the future rate will be. When investing you have to always consider the possibility it can either go up or down in the future and by differing amounts, if you don't you tend to open yourself up to a world of pain. You choose the best options for you based on the risk acceptable to you which depends on many things including the time frame given different levels of volatility etc. If you don't have a magic crystal ball or whatever, then any predictions you make about the future, if based on the best available information, will tend to be the same predictions others are making and therefore this information will generally be priced into the available options (along with everything else that goes in to it). If not, then it's likely someone will find a way to take advantage of this. See also efficient market hypothesis. Note also that while not everyone agrees with it, I'm fairly sure few of them would suggest you can be sure -0.5% is the worst it will be because you can't imagine it being worse. See also the answers by Dor (HK) and the answers Jayron32 if you haven't already. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to try this out on my friends: "Oh no, I don't want to borrow money from you, I am offering you an opportunity to invest your money with me at an exciting negative interest rate !". SinisterLefty (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify as well as to why central banks have set negative interest rates, the reason is complex, but the basic idea is that the overnight rate is the rate that the central bank pays as interest on money loaned to it; other banks will peg their interest rates on other vehicles to this rate set by the central bank. The central bank, by the way, does not really need the money; it uses the sale of this debt (not loans, but bonds) to banks to give the banks a safe place to store its money; it is basically the savings account the central bank uses to give other banks a place to keep their money. Why is the rate on these things so low? Because of the Financial crisis of 2007–2008, the entire short-term overnight debt market (known as Commercial paper) basically ground to a halt, which means all of the liquid assets banks have dried up, known as a liquidity crisis. They stopped being liquid. Lowering the overnight rate is how the central bank tried to get that money flowing again, by lowering the overnight rate, as the theory goes, it discourages the banks from keeping their cash at the central bank, and instead encourages the banks to put that money into the commercial paper market and get it flowing again. It took negative interest rates, but it worked, the financial market reached a new equilibrium that allowed the commercial paper system to get flowing again. The downside is that the new equilibrium includes the negative-interest bonds, and to raise interest rates to the old pre-2008 levels would throw off that equilibrium, and could endanger the system again. So we're in kind of a catch-22; we have a stable commercial paper market, but it's dependent on a negative interest rate. If you want an actual well-written expert source on this, this pretty much explains just what I did. --Jayron32 18:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We should note that the Original Post specified “bonds yielding real negative interest rate,” which involves either current inflation rates (time period X, location Z), or expectations for future rates of inflation. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I wasn't that coherent with myself, since later I mentioned -0.5% (for instance) when I should have mentioned -0.5%-inflation, so I cannot expect answer clearer than I was...
The answer is actually very simple: Many Institutions are obligated to invest their money into secure shares, bonds and alike to establish a certain financial stability in their financial balance which is higher than just keeping that money in a safe (inflation risk for example). Because the financial market is totally flooded and bloated more and more each year it has become very hard to find secure investment possibilities even if negative interest rates are included. Also many countries (like Germany) have changed their policy or habits regarding national debts in recent years.--Kharon (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you point out those rules? Or, better yet, are they explained/referenced in some WP article (because I fear they might be quite technical for the layman)?
Wikipedia has articles titled Banking regulation and Financial regulation which covers the concepts in general and acts as a good starting point for your research. If you follow on links from those articles you're likely to get where you need. --Jayron32 11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
In the end it is simply governmental policy to prevent the "Too big to fail"-dangers and their results like the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 in a totally bloated financial system. Its difficult to point out rules because they are very, very disputed (example: Glass–Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate). Just compare for example Elizabeth Warrens Agenda with Donald Trumps regarding financial market regulations. --Kharon (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks[edit]

On the page for Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks it says George Kerr took office as the first MOE (for Ontario) on July 23, 1971. The Ministry of the Environment wasn't formed until 1972, though. How can someone be Minister of the Environment if there's no Ministry of the Environment yet? It won't be the end of the world if I can't figure this out, but I'm using Sudbury as a historical case study for my master's degree, and this is pertinent (though by no means crucial) to my research.

Dfishershin (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

One possibility is that he was appointed in a provisional role while the enabling legislation to create the department was in the works. There can also be a Minister without portfolio, who has the position, despite not yet being assigned any duties. So, he could have been that until officially assigned to the new ministry, and your source didn't bother to make the distinction. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
A quick Google search reveals that "In 1971, the Department of Energy and Resources Management was reorganized and renamed the Department of the Environment in order to better reflect the Department's increased responsibilities with respect to environmental protection, conservation and preservation as outlined in the Environmental Protection Act of 1971. The Department consisted of the Office of the Minister, the Office of the Deputy Minister, an Administrative Services Branch, the Air Management Branch, the Waste Management Branch, and the Conservation Authorities Branch. In 1972, the Department of the Environment was amalgamated with the Ontario Water Resources Commission to form the Ministry of the Environment" (Source: Archives of Ontario).
Our Ministry (government department) article says: "In Canada, five of the ten provincial governments use the term "ministry" to describe their departments (Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta) but the other five, as well as the federal government, use the term "department". Despite the difference in nomenclature, both the provincial and federal governments use the term "minister" to describe the head of a ministry or department". So, as clear as mud then. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Seems clear to me. The Department of the Environment, founded in 1971, was headed by a Minister of the Environment. The Department changed its name later, but the name of the person at the head of it has always been the Minister of the Environment, down to 1971. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I suspect Alansplodge point is that it's unclear why Ontario had a Department of the Environment if they call their ministries ministries. It seems most likely that in ~1972, Ontario decided to rename and reorganise any of their ministries called "Department" into "Ministry" but out article lacks historical information. See e.g. Ministry of Education (Ontario) , Ministry of Health (Ontario) (which mentions a government wide restructure), Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Ontario) (ditto), Ministry of Labour (Ontario) (ditto), and Ministry of Infrastructure (Ontario) which specifically mentions renaming them. That said, it seems like Ministry of Finance (Ontario) was always a ministry unless our article is very poor, so I'm not sure what, if anything, was the difference between a department and ministry in pre-1972 Ontario. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Found this act [8] (it's actually used as a source in the MOL article at a minimum) which confirms the reorganisation including mass rename in 1972. But I don't think it provides any clue on whether there was any difference between a department and ministry pre-1972. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Following Wiktionary in state matters a ministry is a national or regional government department for public service. No mention of a differenciation arising in recent times. Perhaps the 1972 merging with the Ontario Water Resources Commission made the "public service" orientation more inherent. --Askedonty (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

British colonies that became independent through war victory[edit]

Other than the United States, what other former British colonies became independent through military victory over the British Empire? (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There may well be an intermediate category, where the British weren't defeated militarily, but still the cost was so high they decided to leave as a result of attacks, or leave under different terms or timetable. This may have been the case in the Palestine Mandate. See Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Mandate was not a colony, sensu stricto. It was a League of Nations mandate. But that's probably nit-picky. The OP can answer their own question, without involvement from anyone here, by research starting at List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom. --Jayron32 15:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Aden Emergency prompted an early British withdrawal from Aden in 1967, although it had technically been independent since 1963 but with a British military presence (they're still fighting there without us). The Cyprus Emergency probably hastened independence of the strategically important Colony of Cyprus, but equally vital Malta peacefully achieved independence only four years later. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Some case for Kenya and the Mau Mau. Although they did not, I suppose, defeat the British.--18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
And possibly delayed the British departure, peaceful Gold Coast on the other side of the continent became independent Ghana in 1957, Kenya not until 1962. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Opioid crisis and the aftermath[edit]

There is a lot of talk in the paper press and in the digital web publications about the settlements related to the opioid crisis. I am wondering about the policies of distribution of funds. One source [9] states that the settlement money will be institutionalized. How about families of individuals who died in overdoses? Thanks, - AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Just today, this article seems to explain what is known so far. They breakdown how the settlement money is supposed to be distributed. --Jayron32 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the link provided: "...the combined value of the deal breaks down as follows: $20 billion to $25 billion in cash to be divided among the states and localities to help pay for health care, law enforcement and other costs associated with the epidemic; and another $25 billion to $30 billion in addiction-treatment drugs, supplies and delivery services..." So it would appear that the vast majority of the funds will be paid to corporate organisations which already have major budgets which are mismanaged, this will simply add to their budget and will be filtered through in a big cycle in true American spirit, with the common man being forgotten about at the bottom of the pile to pick up the pieces of their lives and push on as best they can. But hey, survival of the fittest, right? Anton (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't comment on any of that in this venue, because we don't engage in political debate here, instead we just provide information. You're entire free to have any emotional reaction you wish to have to this information, but you'll receive neither affirmation nor contradiction from me. If we were having this conversation elsewhere, that could be different. Just not here. --Jayron32 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Access to the Hindu[edit]

Hi all, I have been helping to improve the sourcing and quality of WP:INDIA related pages. I frequently used The Hindu (an Indian Newspaper) articles, based on its reliability, high editorial standards and detailed coverage on the topic. But recently The Hindu placed its website behind paywall. So Now I cannot access articles for example this to improve our articles. Any suggestions if there is any way I can access through paywall. I do have JSTOR access, but it doesn't work there. Please feel free to move this thread if this is not the right place to ask this. --DBigXray 08:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray. One option I know of is Wikipedia's WP:RX service. Anyone can make a request for an article or book you need to improve the encyclopedia. Editors who have subscriptions/database access check the page and if someone has access, they can share the article with you. (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind reply IP user That will certainly be one possible way, although it will be slow and might not work sometimes. I was wondering if there is an existing mechanism (something like the library card, or its derivatives) through which I can apply and get access to the this Indian newspaper behind paywall. --DBigXray 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you considered physically going to an actual library? If there is a public library in or near the town where you live, it should have a subscription to the major Paywalled online news sites... However, they require using the library’s computers to access them. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ProQuest NewsStand has this and you can access it through the web sites of libraries that subscribe to ProQuest. For example the San Francisco Public Library subscribes. You need an SFPL library card to access it through the web, but any California resident can get a card. If you're in the US but not in California, try the web site of any big-city library in your state and see if there is a similar setup. The same is true of academic libraries, if you have access to one. (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Catherine the Great in Nazi propaganda[edit]

How was the ethnic German Empress Catherine the Great depicted in Nazi propaganda? Thanks. -- (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be German-born (Prussian, technically) Empress of Russia. There certainly would be potential for propaganda there, something like "See how these lowly Slavs can only prosper when under direction from a proper Aryan absolute leader ?". Don't know if they ever actually used it, though. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe that Hitler actually did write in Mein Kampf and/or his Zweites Buch about how Russia proposed when it was led by the largely Germanic Romanov dynasty and about how it went to well when it overthrew the Romanovs and instead (allegedly) became led by Judeo-Bolsheviks. Hitler also talked about how this change of leadership eliminated Russia's right to exist as an independent state--with Russia's only value now being to provide additional Lebensraum to Germany. Seriously. Futurist110 (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume you meant "proposed" -> "prospered" and "well" -> "hell". SinisterLefty (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Was she a blonde? She did provide a good example on how to operate, by having her own husband (Peter the not-so-great) overthrown. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
She was a royal person and as such not popular or even hostile among "National Socialists". There are some rumors that Hitlers only interest in her case was to steal valuables like the Amber Room. --Kharon (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
To be a den next to his Lebensraum. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Googling Google Books for "Katharina II" published 1933-1945 does not turn up much, doesn't seem to have been a key element in NS discourse. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Queen Victoria, possibly of a second marriage[edit]

Watching this video: , Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein initially thought he was going to be considered for a match to Queen Victoria herself. Is this claim correct/are there sources? And if so, did other royals either sought to marry the widow queen or spoke of the possibility of a second marriage. Not interested in anything about John Brown so don’t mention. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Poor Brown, hated by some then and hated now.2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:CC12:B164:5577:FBE (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a tendency of users on the Humanities desk to go on tangently related when asked a specific question. Trying to make my question directed in the right direction. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
John Brown's love for Queen Vic was unrequited. It drove him to an early grave, where his body lies a-mouldering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware that John Brown (servant) and John Brown (abolitionist) are two completely different people. I'm not sure what the point of trying to confuse other people about this is... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for providing proper links, to clarify the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry KAVEBEAR, a thorough search found nothing as far as I can tell. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Members of deposed royal houses having illegitimate children?[edit]

Which cases have there been of members of deposed royal houses (as in, former royal houses) having illegitimate children? I know that Prince Manuel of Bavaria was born an illegitimate child and that Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (b. 1943) had an illegitimate daughter in 2006. I also know that Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma had an illegitimate son in the 1990s and that Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria's first son Jaime was born illegitimate. In addition, Gonzalo, Duke of Aquitaine had an illegitimate daughter in 1968 (his branch of the Spanish Bourbons had already renounced their rights to the Spanish throne by that point in time).

Anyway, which additional cases of members of deposed royal houses (or at the very least members of royal branches who have renounced their rights to a particular throne (even if this throne still exists)) having illegitimate children are there? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thought: this would be an enormous amount of research. List of current pretenders alone contains a couple of hundred names to investigate, and that would increase exponentially if you go back in history via the list in Abolition of monarchy. (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Name for Southern Half of the Italian Peninsula?[edit]

Is there ever a unique name for the entire southern half of the Italian peninsula besides the Kingdom of Naples? I have always found it a bit weird that the Italian Bourbons would reunite Naples and Sicily and simply name their new kingdom Two Sicilies and want to know if there is any alternative obscure historical name for the Kingdom of Naples or the territory associated with it. (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There are some names given at Southern Italy, but these are political, rather than geographic names. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Nowadays there are a few names for Southern Italy (some of them may include Insular Italy): Meridione (from Latin 'merīdiēs', south), Italia meridionale, Mezzogiorno (midday, south), Sud (south), Sud Italia, Suditalia, Italia del sud, Bassa Italia (lower Italy). Terronia is an offensive/humorous name (see Terrone). Italia itself, along with a few ancient poetical names such as Ausonia, Enotria, Esperia, Iapigia and Opicia, originally referred to the southern part of Italy only. The name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is explained in the article. The Kingdom of Naples was also called Regnum Siciliae citra (Pharum), while the Kingdom of Sicily was also called Regnum Siciliae ultra (Pharum). These were geographical names relative to their position in relation with the Faro di Messina (the Strait of Messina). Langobardia Minor comprised a similar area to the Kingdom of Naples. The Diocese of Italia suburbicaria encompassed all of Southern and most of Central Italy. -- (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Wait, wasn't "Sicily" originally only used to refer to the island as it was during Ancient Rome? Does this mean that as a result of Southern Italy coming under Sicilian rule, the people there just decided to give the name "Sicily" to the entire region as well instead of just the island? (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This is explained well in the articles already linked, especially the Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, and Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The short answer is yes, at one point there were two separate Kingdoms of Sicily, one governing the island, and one governing the southern half of the peninsula. The reason is basically exactly as you guessed. --Jayron32 11:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference help for Katherine Mansfield’s Millie (short story)?[edit]

Hi! I’m trying to locate reliable references for Katherine Mansfield’s Millie (short story) from 1913.

I’m on a mobile device so accessing the Google results, and trying to assess their suitability—searching within the results—is proving to be an obstacle.

I’m hoping editors more literarily knowledgeable than I can help identify strong sources that I can then ask WP:RX for copies.

Any help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Can't find an online reference for the republication, but if you can get hold of a short story collection it might mention that in the introduction. Here are some refs you could request that could help with the "style" section; they all discuss "Millie": (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Who created this painting[edit]


Someone uploaded a black and white scan of a painting in 2004 of the Dutch revolution: Special:PermaLink/12706982. This person didn't source the painting, but it's probably an old book scan. Another editor later tagged the painter as Frederick Henry (Special:Diff/613050916), which seems highly improbable.

Does anyone recognize the style. Can we figure out the author of this painting? I do not want to delete this image if it's public domain. Magog the Ogre (tc) 18:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm guessing you've already done this. To my eye it is done in a style (modernistic?) that is unlike anything else painted about that siege. I look forward to any info that other editors can find. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Per TinEye, all online versions of that image appear to have originated with the Wikipedia one, so that's going to make it harder to figure out. (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a tapestry rather than a painting? Might account for the "modernistic" rendering of the smoke and the slightly wonky spires. No luck searching though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the smoke in front of the cannons is particularly modernistic, though the background smoke is another matter.
Anyway, by changing MarnetteD's search to say "frederick henry" instead of "painting", I found another place where the painting, if that's what it is, is attributed to Henry. Unfortunately, that is literally all it says about it, and it sure doesn't seem like a reliable source. The full page says it is a "slide presentation" on "The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment", and here is a direct link to the relevant slide. Note that the postage stamp that is the other image on the slide commemorates what as far as I know is an unrelated event: the meeting of Martin Luther and Emperor Charles V in 1521! I used TinEye to look for other images showing the siege painting and the stamp together, but it only found separate images of one or the other. -- (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
In any case, according to our article on the siege itself, "Frederick Henry" was the commander of the attacking army, so the attribution is almost certainly erroneous anyway. (It's easy to see how a description like "Siege of Hulst by Frederick Henry" could have been misunderstood by somebody as referring to a painter rather than to a general). Fut.Perf. 08:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well figured out! -- (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It is most likely not a "painting" but an Engraving, which where very common in that time. Frederick Henry was very likely the sponsor. The artist was likely not found significant enough to be mentioned since Mr. Henry was nothing less than the the sovereign prince of Orange. --Kharon (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Uhm, that's far-fetched. We have absolutely no reason to think that Frederick Henry had anything to do with the picture at all, as there is not the slightest hint of sourcing for that attribution out there. It was a plain, trivial misunderstanding that happened right here and right before our eyes, inside Wikipedia. Somebody in 2004 uploaded the picture without any attribution or sourcing; somebody in 2005 added it to an article with the – correct but ambiguous – caption "Siege of the city of Hulst […] by Frederick Henry" [10]; somebody on Commons in 2014 quoted that caption [11] and subsequently misunderstood it as an authorship attribution and added that to the file description [12]. Fut.Perf. 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I deleted the author credit on the image. -- (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

Exhumation of Pope John Paul II for beatification, but not for canonization[edit]

Why was John Paul II not re-exhumed for his canonization even though he was exhumed for his beatification? Our article on his canonization ceremony doesn't seem to go into detail as to why this was the case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the article Canonization, exhumation only occurs several steps in the process before canonization. The specific phase where sainthood is granted does not need a second exhumation. See that article, under the section "since 1983". Exhumation occurs during the "servus dei" phase, which is the first step. Sainthood is the last step. --Jayron32 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Digging up dead popes isn't necessarily always done to "beautify" them; sometimes the motive was the exact opposite - see Cadaver Synod. Eliyohub (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The verbs BEATIFY and BEAUTIFY are spelled differently because they mean different things. DroneB (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Although plenty of members of the clergy deserve to be cannonized. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The exhumation does not need to occur at the servus Dei step. Take for example Fulton J. Sheen who was declared Venerable recently even while his remains were embroiled in a dispute of custody. Elizium23 (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about impeachment[edit]

This question refers to the impeachment and/or removal of a sitting U.S. president. If the House votes to impeach, they send the case over to the Senate. Is the Senate required to hold a trial? Or can the Senate simply dismiss the charges right at the outset? In other words, can the Senate "refuse" to move forward? If you have a (regular) criminal case, the defendant's lawyer can request that the judge dismiss the case ... citing various legal reasons. Is there anything similar to this concept, in an impeachment setting? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any time-frame under which the Senate is required to vote, which essentially means they can just ignore it until Trump is no longer president. That's not the same as dismissing charges, though. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm ... that just doesn't quite seem "right" to me. Are you suggesting that the Senate can "ignore it" for a full five years, until Trump is no longer president? I can't imagine that that would be "allowed". It would defeat the whole point of impeachment, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
First, you're assuming Trump will be re-elected. Second, the US Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the degree of partisanship, and specifically the situation where the Senate is controlled by the President's Party, and the House by the opposition party. Although George Washington's farewell address did warn about such things.
Note that a similar unlimited delay is also allowed in approval of Supreme Court judges, which Republicans used to not even consider Obama's choice and rather wait until they next had a Republican president. I agree that these are serious flaws in the Constitution (with the Supreme Court being far more serious, since a Senate that chooses not to even vote after impeachment isn't about to convict, anyway). SinisterLefty (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If the Senate does something "not allowed", who is going to stop them? There is hypothetically a possibility that the judiciary could order them to hold a trial, but it's likely the courts would consider this a "political question" not within their purview. (One example of someone discussing this.) And even if they did…the Senate could just ignore the court. Something a lot of people (in my opinion) have a hard time understanding is that laws are not self-executing. They're not magic incantations. Laws only mean anything when they're enforced. -- (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Had this situation been foreseen, one possible remedy that could have been put in the Constitution would be to allow the House to hold the impeachment trial, should the Senate decline to do so within a given period. Or we could follow a method similar to Constitutional amendments, and allow state legislatures to vote. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I found a reference.[13] Thincat (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
That ref doesn't seem to talk about whether the Senate is required to hold a trial, but does assume it will happen. I agree, since being found "not guilty" (even if a majority find him guilty but less than the super-majority required), will no doubt be used to represent it all as a Democratic Party conspiracy. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It says "the Senate rules governing impeachment require the vice president to swear in the chief justice immediately after the House’s charges are announced on the floor. The rules then explicitly empower the chief justice to “direct all the forms of proceedings” during the trial." Thincat (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
1) The Senate can change the Senate rules.
2) "Immediately" isn't a specific unit of time.
3) If there's no punishment for not doing so, it has no teeth.
4) Swearing him in doesn't mean the trial starts then. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
According to this WAPO article,[14] Mitchell can ignore it. Whether he actually will ignore it will likely depend on which way the political wind is blowing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I’ve purposely avoided most of the unending media coverage—full volumes almost daily—but the recurring tipping point seems to be public opinion. It seems the Senate is unlikely to do much unless/until the vast ‘voting’ public opinion makes it too inconvenient not to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but "not doing much" may well take the form of holding a mock trial and quickly dismissing any charges, so as to get it out of the public mind as quickly as possible, prior to the elections. Then, even if public opinion does change, it will be too late, unless Trump is again impeached for his next illegal activity. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The House could theoretically keep impeaching the same person repeatedly for exactly the same reason, though it's questionable whether it would if acquittal were assured. There's nothing like the double jeopardy prohibition for impeachment because impeachment is not actually a judicial proceeding, and its potential consequences do not entail "jeopardy of life or limb". -- (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
That wouldn't keep Trump and his cronies, including Fox News, from claiming it was double jeopardy, and thus convincing his base. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Like denying that there's such a thing as an emoluments clause. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Clarification – My question isn't so much "Can the Senate do nothing and simply ignore the House's impeachment?". What I was really getting at was this: "Is there some (legal) mechanism that the defense lawyers could employ -- similar to a (regular) criminal case -- whereby the defense lawyers request (of the judge) that the charges be dropped, for whatever valid legal reasons (not enough evidence, the alleged conduct does not amount to a "high crime or misdemeanor", or whatever, etc.)?" So, they (the Senate) are not really "doing nothing" or "ignoring" the House. Rather, they are taking affirmative action to declare that, legally, there is no basis for a trial. And, thus, no need for a trial. (I understand that we are discussing a political -- and not a legal -- process here. But, I assume there is some overlap.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that assumption may be flawed. Political processes don’t overlap with legal processes. They run parallel to each other. Similar yet not the same. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. But, I don't follow you. You are saying that, in this case, the impeachment political process is running parallel to ... which other legal process? Also, regardless of my assumption (whether correct or not), my question still stands about the Senate's ability to "drop the charges" (for lack of a better word) before trial. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's suppose the president is accused of breaking a law. The impeachment process can't arrest him or send him to jail. All it can do is boot him from office - to "fire" him, basically. The legal system can then decide whether to file criminal charges against the ex-president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Arraignment is the part before a legal trial where the judge determines if there's enough evidence to proceed to a full trial and entertains defense peremptory pleas for a summary dismissal. This is equivalent to the House of Representatives phase of impeachment, where presumably a Rep of the President's party would make such an argument. But once it gets to the Senate, that's equivalent to the actual trial phase. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a valid question. I am, clearly, not "seeking legal advice". The "closure" needs to be removed (i.e., the question opened back up again). If people are not answering the question "properly" -- whatever that means -- I have no control over that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to reopen it. We can just ignore that closure, which seems inappropriate to me, too. There were plenty of well referenced answers, along with the opinions. I thought we had it answered, though. What else do you need to know ? SinisterLefty (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a valid question ... that was inappropriately closed. Should be re-opened. On a Reference Desk, anyone is allowed to "pipe in" on an ongoing discussion. This purple "closure template" will dissuade others from joining in the conversation. And from offering further replies. To a (that is, my) completely valid question. Not only does the purple closure template dissuade them from doing so, it explicitly prohibits them from doing so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
Between answering your question and discussing politics generally, there is a difference. As I said, if people wish to offer sources (as one would get at a reference desk) to answer your question, I would have no objection. But if the idea is to use your question as an excuse to discuss politics generally, then there are other boards, on other sites, that are better set up for such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Bottom line, it's a perfectly valid question. As I stated above -- very clearly -- If people are not answering the question "properly" -- whatever that means -- I have no control over that. I posted a valid question. I don't control the responses of others (to my valid question). You are "shutting down" a perfectly valid question. Or, at least, attempting to do so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, if your action is appropriate -- which I don't think that it is -- then simply "shut down" or "strike out" the invalid and the inappropriate replies component ... not the valid question component. And don't "shut down" the whole thing. You are wielding a sledge hammer to swat a fly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. Discussion that keeps to our guidelines is perfectly proper and wouldn't be hatted. At worst, I've reset the discussion and reminded people of guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say that. And I did say that. You did not "reset the discussion and remind people of guidelines" ... what you did was to explicitly shut down the conversation. Explicitly. That is the very purpose of that purple closure template. And, furthermore ... you state: As I said, if people wish to offer sources (as one would get at a reference desk) to answer your question, I would have no objection. Well, how do you know that the next editor down the line won't do exactly that? (That is, to offer sources -- as one would get at a reference desk -- to answer my question.) The next guy down the line may be ready to do exactly that. But, now, he cannot. Since you closed the discussion. (Not to mention, chilled any participation.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I would put it to you that politicized language also chills discussion. The answer to your question may have been available to someone who paused here, saw such language, and decided they didn't want any part of the discussion. I notice that you yourself tried to redirect the discussion to what you asked--does the Senate have to hold a trial on an impeachment presented by the House.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. So, we have inoffensive / non-objectionble questions. And (according to you) offensive / objectionable replies. So, like I said above, cross out or strike out the offensive replies (over which I have no control) ... not the non-objectionable questions (over which I do have control). And you think the best course of action is to strike the whole thing? Unreal. And please don't try to claim that you were merely "redirecting the conversation" and "reminding people of guidelines". (Please point out exactly where you did that?) You very explicitly shut down a valid conversation. And -- even worse -- are now defending that decision. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
And, to directly counter your "closure" comment. (1) I did not ask for legal advice. It's absurd to think that I am seeking legal advice in the event that I may be impeached as a U.S. president at some point down the road. (2) I did not -- per your quote -- "request [any] opinions, predictions or debate". Since you claim that I did both of these things, please point out where I did so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've attempted to answer you three times here only to be edit conflicted and have to change my response. Plainly we disagree, and I will not argue with you. I refer you to the question below as a productive means of continuing the conversation.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Me asking valid questions after you accuse me of misconduct (and you avoiding my valid questions) is what you call "argue". How convenient. And, now, so easy for you to "side-step" replying. I see how that works. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── My view of the matter is that guidelines cover not just the initial question but the debate as it evolves. I do see where you are coming from on this and probably in future I will look for a more effective means that will spare everyone fuss and muss. I'm not going to go through contributions with a blue pencil, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the problem. You see offensive material (by others) and you see non-offensive material (by me). You state: I'm not going to go through contributions with a blue pencil, though. So -- easy and convenient solution -- you just remove everything ... both the offensive material (over which I have no control) and the non-offensive material (over which I do have control). As I said above (with which you disagreed) ... you are wielding a sledge hammer to swat a fly. And, I don't appreciate it. Me being on the receiving end of your "Well, I don't really feel like taking a blue pen and striking out only the offensive posts" comment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair comment. You have tried to keep the discussion on track and I regret any imputation otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am requesting that this discussion be "un-closed" (i.e., that the purple closure template be removed). Also, I went through every single response above, one by one. And I see very little -- if any -- objectionable material. There was one brief sentence, something about Trump trying to placate his base. And perhaps one other brief sentence in reply to that comment. All in all, there is little no nothing objectionable in the above conversation. Again, I am requesting that this discussion be "un-closed" (i.e., that the purple closure template be removed). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've done that. I will ask people, speaking generally, to keep politics out of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I still see no problem with the Q, and most of the answers, but let me ask again, what parts haven't we answered to your satisfaction ? SinisterLefty (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Admin help request[edit]

This is way too much wall-of-text for me to figure out why or even who is asking for admin attention. Please have a concise question or request and either re-use {{admin help}} or ping me if you still need admin assistance. –Darkwind (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wolfsberg Castle[edit]

According to the Hugo Henckel von Donnersmarck article, he "rebuilt Castle Wolfsberg in neo-Gothic Tudor style". First question:  Would that be Wolfsberg Castle (Obertrubach)?  That article suggests not.  Could it be another castle nearby? There are possible candidates linked in the article. Or ... perhaps a "citation needed" tag is in order. The link to a potentially useful online source yields '404 error'. Thx in advance for any sourced info. 2606:A000:1126:28D:D0BC:ACFA:AC47:D7A (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it would be Wolfsberg Castle (Carinthia). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
That must be it (since it is also known as Henckel-Donnersmarck Castle); thanks! There is a need for better disambiguation; I just now found others: Wolfsburg Castle (is not a disambiguation page), Wolfsberg Castle (is a disambiguation page) -- Wolfsburg Castle, Neustadt -- Wolfsberg Castle (Harz) -- others, maybe? 2606:A000:1126:28D:D0BC:ACFA:AC47:D7A (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC) -- [edit] In the article, I added link to proper castle & cn-tagged the unsourced information

October 22[edit]

Please help identify this potential korean buddhist statue[edit]

Korean Buddhist Statue.jpg

Approximately 10lbs. Standing Buddha while holding a lotus with a sauwastika engraved on the chest. I believe this to be made out of bronze. I don't have the slightest clue what time period this is from as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluxury (talkcontribs) 05:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The verdigris patina certainly implies some type of copper alloy, which makes bronze a possibility. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Are there no inscriptions or maker's marks on the back/underside/inside/whatever? If there were they might help. From the photo alone I see no way of telling if the statue is of significant antiquity, a modern copy of an antique original, or just a cheap modern piece made for tourists. (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bengt Feldreich[edit]

The article on Bengt Feldreich says that he was a biastophiliac (Biastophilia). Now this may be a featured article but when I looked up what biastophilism was I was surprised that if he indeed did have this rapist tendency that we would feature him. Now I looked at the source for this claim and can't see that this is justified. Perhaps a better Wikipedian than I can look into this, perhaps its vandalism? Thanks Anton (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a recent piece of vandalism that unfortunately slipped through. Fut.Perf. 08:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

USA and war[edit]

When was the last time the USA was not involved in a war. It would appear to me that the USA seems to almost constantly be involved in some form of war. Also do we have a list of all wars that America has been involved with? Associated, I was told that there is a place in the USA where there is a house or perhaps a restaurant where a list of all wars involving the USA is kept and that this spirals out for some way. Any info please. Thanks Anton (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Find out when the Temple of Janus was closed... SFriendly.gif
But seriously, before 1898, U.S. wars were overwhelmingly local (internal or with territorially-adjacent areas). It was only in 1898 that the U.S. began interventions in far-flung regions of the globe... AnonMoos (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The Barbary Wars were well before 1898. --Jayron32 12:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So according to the list, it would be between Kosovo and 9/11 or 1999 to 2001. Really? The US were not involved in anything between this time? Also the only other hiatus I can see is between WWII and Korea or 1945 to 1950. Again, really? The US were not involved in anything between this time? Thanks Anton (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's going to depend on what you define as a "war" and what you define as "US involvement". If you mean to include every nation that receives US aid and has taken military action against some faction during that time, then the US is perpetually involved at war, but then many other nations would also be, under that def. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I would define it as US troops actively involved in combat or actively deployed for the purpose of engaging in combat in an ongoing conflict. I would suggest that many within the List of wars involving the United States are not wars at all but rather simply military expeditions. Any further clarity would be appreciated. Thanks Anton (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Lengths of U.S. combat forces' participation in wars is closer to what you are looking for, though it returns the same answer you have above, 1999-2001. It also has a collapsible menu of "Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces" at the bottom (in Desktop View) which might align better with what you're looking for. (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In the January–February issue of Smithsonian there was an item "A Nation at Arms", which said that if "war" includes any use "of military force, or the imminent threat of force (as in the gunboat diplomacy of the 1850s), to achieve national ends", then the US was at war for 227 out of the 235 228 out of the 244 years since 1775. For some reason the infographic (credited to Matthew Twombly) won't display for me when I go to that page, but while I still had the issue on paper I noted that the 16 peacetime years it showed were 1796–97, 1807–09, 1816, 1894–97, and 1935–40. So on this basis the answer to the OP's question would be 1940. -- (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sable, the human skeleton?[edit]


I was looking frantically for the reason that Famine (of the four horsemen) is named Sable in Good Omens. Long story short, in Derry I found that there's a figure "Sable, a human skeleton", and that a book about the Great Famine (Ireland) is named "Sable wings over the earth". So there seems to be some fictional famished skeleton figure folklore by the name Sabel, but I couldn't find further details. Any input? אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sable is a heraldic term for "black". See tincture (heraldry)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, and what about "the human skeleton" (or maybe it's "skeleton man")? אילן שמעוני (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
See Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The skeleton riding a black horse symbolizes famine. A sable is a small furry animal whose fur was prized. They are dark brown or black. See Sable#Etymology. Black has long been associated with death and evil, as in bad guys wearing black hats in Westerns. The association of a skeleton with death and specifically death by famine is obvious, as a starving person looks like a skeleton, with bones prominently visible under the skin. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, both of you. אילן שמעוני (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I suggest using the resolved tag instead of changing the title, as that causes problems with links. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

October 23[edit]