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

December 28

Truncated Indian map in Wikipedia

Why is the map of India always appears truncated in all of Wikipedia pages, when there is no official annexing of Indian territories in Kashmir, by Pakistan and China nor its confirmation from Indian govt ? With Pakistan and China just claiming the territory, why the world map shows it as annexed by them, separating from India ? TravelLover05 (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The map at India shows Kashmir in light green, meaning "claimed but not controlled". It's not truncated, it's differently included.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see no 6 in Talk:India/FAQ ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

December 29

Set animal's name = sha?

"In ancient Egyptian art, the Set animal, or sha,[citation needed]" - this seems like a major citation needed. Any help? Temerarius (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Which article does that appear in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It must be this article. Omidinist (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That term was in the original version of the article, written 15 years ago by an editor named "P Aculeius" who is still active. Maybe the OP could ask that user about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Each time, the word šꜣ is written over the Seth-animal.^[1]
• Sometimes the animal is designated as sha (šꜣ) , but we are not certain at all whether this designation was its name.^[2]
• When referring to the ancient Egyptian terminology, the so-called sha-animal, as depicted and mentioned in the Middle Kingdom tombs of Beni Hasan, together with other fantastic creatures of the desert and including the griffin, closely resembles the Seth animal.^[3]
• šꜣ ‘Seth-animal’^[4]
• He claims that the domestic pig is called “sha,” the name of the Set-animal.^[5]

Wiktionary gives šꜣ as meaning "wild pig", not mentioning use in connection with depictions of the Seth-animal. The hieroglyphs shown for šꜣ do not resemble those in the article Set animal, which instead are listed as ideograms in (or for) stẖ, the proper noun Seth.  --Lambiam 08:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The reason I brought it up was because the hieroglyph for the set animal didn't have the sound value to match in jsesh.

Temerarius (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word sha (accompanying depictions of the Set animal) in hieroglyphs

IMO they should be removed, or, if this can be sourced, be replaced by one or more of the following two:  --Lambiam 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Budge's original drawing and second version of PharaohCrab's drawing; the original looked very different, and this one is clearly based on Budge's as traced by me in 2009, but without attribution.

The article—originally "Sha (animal)" was one of the first I wrote, or attempted to write, and was based on and built on the identification by E. A. Wallis Budge, in The Gods of the Egyptians, which uses the hieroglyph for the word "sha", and includes the illustration that I traced from a scan and uploaded to Commons (and which was included in the article from the time of its creation in 2009 until December 21, 2024 when User:PharaohCrab replaced it with his original version of the one shown above; see its history for what it looked like until yesterday). I have had very little to do with the article since User:Sonjaaa made substantial changes and moved it to "Seth animal" in 2010; although it's stayed on my watchlist, I long since stopped trying to interfere with it, as it seemed to me that other editors were determined to change it to the way they thought it should be, and I wasn't sophisticated enough to intervene or advocate effectively for my opinions. In fact the only edit by me I can see after that was fixing a typo.

As for the word sha, that is what Budge called it, based on the hieroglyph associated with it; I was writing about this specific creature, which according to Budge and some of the other sources quoted above has some degree of independence from Set, as it sometimes appears without him and is used as the determinative of one or two other deities, whose totemic animal it might also have been. One of the other scholars quoted above questions whether the word sha is the name of the animal, but still associates the word with the animal: Herman Te Velde's article, "Egyptian Hieroglyphs as Signs Symbols and Gods", quoted above, uses slightly modified versions of Budge's illustrations; his book Seth, God of Confusion is also quoted above, both with the transliteration šꜣ, which in "Egyptian Hieroglyphs" he also renders sha. Percy Newberry is the source cited by the Henry Thompson quotation above, claiming that sha referred to a domestic pig as well as the Set animal, and a different god distinct from Set, though sharing the same attributes (claims of which Thompson seems skeptical). Herman Te Velde also cites Newberry, though he offers a different explanation for the meaning of "sha" as "destiny". All Things Ancient Egypt, also quoted above, calls the animal "the so-called sha-animal", while Classification from Antiquity to Modern Times just uses šꜣ and "Seth-animal".

I'm not certain what the question here is; that the hieroglyph transliterated sha is somehow associated with the creature seems to have a clear scholarly consensus; most of the scholars use it as the name of the creature; Herman Te Velde is the only one who suggests that it might not be its name, though he doesn't conclude whether it is or isn't; and one general source says in passing "so-called sha-animal", which accepts that this is what it's typically referred to in scholarship, without endorsing it. Although Newberry made the connection with pigs, none of the sources seems to write the name with pig hieroglyphs as depicted above. Could you be clearer about what it is that's being discussed here? P Aculeius (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

things that start with sh

I asked because I couldn't find it in Gardiner (jsesh, no match when searching by sound value) or Budge (dictionary vol II.)

Temerarius (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

December 30

I do not say the Frenchman will not come. I only say he will not come by sea.

1. What is the ultimate source of this famous 1803 quote by John Jervis (1735 – 1823), 1st Earl of St Vincent, First Lord of the Admiralty at the time. I googled Books and no source is ever given except possibly another collection of quotations. The closest I got was: "At a parley in London while First Lord of the Admiralty 1803". That's just not good enough. Surely there must be someone who put this anecdote in writing for the first time.

2. Wouldn't you say this use of the simple present in English is not longer current in contemporary English, and that the modern equivalent would use present continuous forms "I'm not saying... I'm only saying..." (unless Lord Jervis meant to say he was in the habit of saying this; incidentally I do realize this should go to the Language Desk but I hope it's ok just this once)

178.51.7.23 (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming he's talking about England, does he propose building a bridge over the Channel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

How about a tunnel? --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a joke. He's saying that the French won't invade under any circumstances (see English understatement). Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The First Lord of the Admiralty wouldn't be the one stopping them if the French came by tunnel (proposed in 1802) or air (the French did have hot air balloons). Any decent military officer would understand that an invasion by tunnel or balloon would have no chance of success, but this fear caused some English opposition against the Channel Tunnel for the next 150 years. Just hinting at the possibility of invasion by tunnel amongst military officers would be considered a joke.

Unless he was insulting the British Army (no, now I'm joking). PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The quoted wording varies somewhat. Our article John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent has it as "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea" in an 1801 letter to the Board of Admiralty, cited to Andidora, Ronald (2000). Iron Admirals: Naval Leadership in the Twentieth Century. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-313-31266-3.. Our article British anti-invasion preparations of 1803–05 has Jervis telling the House of Lords "I do not say the French cannot come, I only say they cannot come by sea", and then immediately, and without citation, saying it was more probably Keith. I can't say I've ever seen it attributed to Keith anywhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, Andidora does not in fact say it was in a letter to the Board of Admiralty, nor does he explicitly say 1801. And his source, The Age of Nelson by G J Marcus has it as Jervis telling the House of Lords sometime during the scare of '03-'05. Marcus doesn't give a source. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Robert Southey was attributing it to Lord St Vincent as early as 1806, and while I don't want to put too much weight on his phrase "used to say" it does at any rate raise the possibility that St Vincent said (or wrote) it more than once. Perhaps Marcus and our St Vincent article are both right. --Antiquary (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Some modern accounts (not Southey apparently) claim Lord St Vincent was speaking in the House of Lords. If that was the case, wouldn't it be found in the parliamentary record? How far back does the parliamentary record go for the House of Commons and/or the House of Lords. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As for (2), the tense is still alive and kicking, if I do say so myself. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't say? [An idiom actually meaning "You say that, do you?", although I dare say most of you know that.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not what I am asking. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Then I will answer you more directly. You are wrong: while the usage you quote is less common than it once was, it is still current, according to my experience as a native BrE speaker for over 65 years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I kid you not.  --Lambiam 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What percentage of Ancient Greek literature was preserved?

Has anyone seen an estimate of what percentage of Ancient Greek literature (broadly understood: literature proper, poetry, mathematics, philosophy, history, science, etc.) was preserved. It doesn't matter how you define "Ancient Greek literature", or if you mean the works available in 100 BC or 1 AD or 100 AD or 200 AD... Works were lost even in antiquity. I'm just trying to get a rough idea and was wondering if anyone ever tried to work out an estimate. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an answer handy for you at the moment, but I can tell you that people have tried to work out an estimate for this, at least from the perspective of "how many manuscripts containing such literature managed to survive past the early Middle Ages". We've worked this one out, with many caveats, by comparing library catalogues from very early monasteries to known survivals and estimating the loss rate. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

One estimate is (less than) [6] one percent. --Askedonty (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We have a Lost literary work article with a large "Antiquity" section. AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

These are works known to have existed, because they were mentioned and sometimes even quoted in works that have survived. These known lost works are probably only a small fraction of all that have been lost.  --Lambiam 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Few things which might be helpful:

1. So profuse was Galen's output that the surviving texts represent nearly half of all the extant literature from ancient Greece.
2. Although not just Greek, but only 1% of ancient literature survives. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 11:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The following quantities are known: $S,$ the number of preserved works, $L,$ the (unknown) number of lost works, and $M_{L},$ the number of lost works of which we know, through mentions in preserved works. In a (very) naive model, let $\mu$ stand for the probability that a given work (lost or preserved) is mentioned in some other preserved work (so $M_{L}=\mu L$). The expected number of mentions of preserved works in other preserved works is then $M_{S}=\mu (S-1).$ If we have the numerical value of the latter quantity (which is theoretically obtainable by scanning all preserved works), we can obtain an estimate for $\mu$ and compute $L\approx {\frac {M_{L}}{M_{S}}}(S-1).$

 --Lambiam 13:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Even without seeing any professional estimate of the kind I'm asking about here, my ballpark figure was that it had to be less than 1 percent, simply from noting how little of even the most celebrated and important authors has been preserved (e.g. about 5 percent for Sophocles) and how there are hundreds of authors and hundreds of works for which we only have the titles and maybe a few quotes, not to mention all those works of which we have not an inkling, the number of which it is, for this very reason, extremely hard to estimate.

• But as a corollary to my first question I have another three:

• 1. Has any modern historian tackled this paradox, namely the enormous influence that the culture of the Ancient World has had on the West while at the same time how little we actually know about that culture, and as a consequence the problem that we seem to believe that we know much more than we actually do? in other words that our image of it that has had this influence on Western culture might be to some extent a modern creation and might be very different of what it actually was?

• 2. I understand that in this regard there can be the opposite opinion (or we can call it a hypothesis, or an article of faith) which is the one that is commonly held (at least implicitly): that despite all that was lost the main features of our knowledge of the culture of the Ancient World are secure and that no lost work is likely to have modified the fundamentals? Like I said this seems to be the position that is commonly implicitly held, but I'm interested to hear if any historian has discussed this question and defended this position explicitly in a principled way?

• 3. Finally to what extent is the position mentioned in point 2 simply a result of ignorance (people not being aware of how much was lost)? How widespread is (in the West) the knowledge of how much was lost? How has that awareness developed in the West, both at the level of the experts and that of the culture in general, since say the 15th century? Have you encountered any discussions of these points?

178.51.7.23 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The issues touched upon are major topics in historiography as well as the philosophy of history, not only for the Ancient (Classical) World but for all historical study. Traditionally, historians have concentrated on the culture of the high and mighty. The imprint on the historical record by hoi polloi is much more difficult to detect, except in the rare instances where they rose up, so what we think of as "the" culture of any society is that of a happy few. Note also that "the culture of the Ancient World" covers a period of more than ten centuries, in which kingdoms and empires rose and fell, states and colonies were founded and conquered, in an endless successions of wars and intrigues. On almost any philosophical issue imaginable, including natural philosophy, ancient philosophers have held contrary views. It is not clear how to define "the" culture of the Ancient World, and neither is it clear how to define the degree to which this culture has influenced modern Western society. It may be argued that the influence of say Plato or Sophocles has largely remained confined to an upper crust. I think historians studying this are well aware of the limitations of their source material, including the fact that history is written by the victors.  --Lambiam 13:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

178.51.7.23 -- Think of it this way: What did it mean to "publish" something in the ancient world? You had at least one written manuscript of your work -- rarely more than a handful of such manuscripts. You could show what you had written to your friends, have it delivered to influential people, bequeath it to your heirs, or donate it to an archive or research collection (almost none of which were meaningfully public libraries in the modern sense of that phrase). However you chose to do it, once you were gone, the perpetuation of your work depended on other people having enough interest in it to do the laborious work of copying the manuscript, or being willing to pay to have a copy made. Works of literature which did not interest other people enough to copy manuscripts of it were almost always eventually lost, which ensured that a lot of tedious and worthless stuff was filtered out. Of course, pagan literary connoisseurs, Christian monks, Syriac and Arabic translators seeking Greek knowledge, and Renaissance Humanists all had different ideas of what was worth preserving, but between them, they ensured that a lot of interesting or engaging or informative works ended up surviving from ancient times. I'm sure that a number of worthy books still slipped through the gaps, but some losses were very natural and to be expected; for example, some linguists really wish that Claudius's book on the Etruscan language had survived, but it's not surprising that it didn't, since it would not have generally interested ancient, medieval, or renaissance literate people in the same way it would interest modern scholars struggling with Etruscan inscriptions.

By the way, college bookstores on or near campuses of universities which had a Classics program sometimes used to have a small section devoted to the small green-backed (Greek) and red-backed (Latin) volumes of the Loeb Classical Library, and you could get an idea of what survived from ancient times (and isn't very obscure or fragmentary) by perusing the shelves... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed - at the other end of the scale, the Description of Greece by Pausanias seems to have survived into the Middle Ages in a single MS (now of course lost), and there are no ancient references to either it or him known. Since the Renaissance it has been continuously in print. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References

December 31

Was the fictional character "The Jackal" (as played by Edward Fox and Bruce Willis) based on Carlos The Jackal?

Talking about the fictional assassin from the books and films. I once read somewhere that the real Carlos The Jackal didn't like being compared to the fictional character, because he said he was a professional Marxist revolutionary, not merely a hitman for hire to the highest bidder (not in the article about him at the moment, so maybe not true). 146.90.140.99 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the character wasn't based on Carlos. The films are based on the 1971 historical fiction novel The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth, which begins with a fairly accurate account of the actual 1962 assassination attempt on Charles de Gaulle by the French Air Force lieutenant colonel Jean Bastien-Thiry, which failed. Subsequently in the fictional plot the terrorists hire an unnamed English professional hitman whom they give the codename 'The Jackal'.

Carlos the Jackal was a Venezuelan terrorist named Ilich Ramírez Sánchez operating in the 1970s and '80s. He was given the cover name 'Carlos' when in 1971 he joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. When authorities found some of his weapons stashed in a friend's house, a copy of Forsyth's novel was noticed on his friend's bookshelf, and a Guardian journalist then invented the nickname, as journalists are wont to do. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fictionalised Ilich Ramírez Sánchez / Carlos the Jackal from the Jason Bourne novels. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

I am on to creating an article on Lu Chun soon. If anyone has got references about him other than those on google, it would be great if you could share them here. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 11:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you try the National Central Library of Taiwan? The library has a lot of collection about history of Tang dynasty. If you want to write a research paper for publication purpose, you need to know what have been written by others. Then the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation in Taiwan under the central library can be a good starting point. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of the Granicus

This month some news broke about identification of the Battle of the Granicus site, stating in particular: "Professor Reyhan Korpe, a historian from Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (ÇOMÜ) and Scientific Advisor to the “Alexander the Great Cultural Route” project, led the team that uncovered the battlefield". However, per Battle of the Granicus#Location it seems that the exact site has been known since at least Hammond's 1980 article. Am I reading the news correctly that what Korpe's team actually did was mapping Alexander’s journey to the Granicus rather than identifying the battle site per se? Per news, "Starting from Özbek village, Alexander’s army moved through Umurbey and Lapseki before descending into the Biga Plain". Brandmeister^talk 23:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If Körpe and his team wrote a paper about their discovery, I haven't found it, so I can only go by news articles reporting on their findings. Apparently, Körpe gave a presentation at the Çanakkale Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism for an audience of local mayors and district governors,^[7] and I think the news reports reflect what he said there. Obviously, the presentation was in Turkish. Turkish news sources, based on an item provided by DHA, quote him as saying, "Bölgede yaptığımız araştırmalarda antik kaynakları da çok dikkatli okuyarak, yorumlayarak savaşın aşağı yukarı tam olarak nerede olduğunu, hangi köyler arasında olduğunu, ovanın tam olarak neresinde olduğunu bulduk." [My underlining] Google Translate turns this into, "During our research in the region, by reading and interpreting ancient sources very carefully, we found out more or less exactly where the war took place, which villages it took place between, and where exactly on the plain it took place." I cannot reconcile "more or less" with "exactly".

The news reports do not reveal the location identified by Körpe, who is certainly aware of Hammond's theory, since he cited the latter's 1980 article in earlier publications. One possibility is that the claim will turn out to have been able to confirm Hammond's theory definitively. Another possibility is that the location they identified is not "more or less exactly" the same as that of Hammond's theory.  --Lambiam 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

January 1

Has there ever been an incident of a serial killer murdering another serial killer?

Question as topic. Has this ever happened outside of the movies? 146.90.140.99 (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Just because you can't find any incident, doesn't mean this kind of case never happened (type II error). Stanleykswong (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently yes: Dean Corll was killed by one of his his accomplices, Elmer Wayne Henley. --Antiquary (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course it would be more notable if the two were not connected to each other. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're including underworld figures, this happens not infrequently. As an Aussie, a case that springs to mind was Andrew Veniamin murdering Victor Pierce. Both underworld serial murderers. I'm sure there are many similar cases in organised crime. Eliyohub (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Aren't hired killers distinct from the usual concept of a serial killer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Outside the movies? Sure, on TV. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The Dexter character from the multiple Dexter series is based on Pedro Rodrigues Filho, who killed criminals, including murderers. It is necessary to decide how many merders each of those murders did in order to decide if you would want to classify them as serial killers or just general murderers. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like the Death Wish (1974 film) film series might have also drawn inspiration from Filho. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Another serial killer question

about 20 years ago, I saw a documentary where it was said that the majority of serial killers kill for sexual gratification, or for some sort of revenge against their upbringing, or because in their head that God (or someone else) told them to kill. But the FBI agent on the documentary said something about how their worst nightmare was an extremely intelligent, methodical killer who was doing what he did to make some sort of grand statement about society/political statement. That this sort of killer was one step ahead of law enforcement and knew all of their methods. Like a Hannibal Lecter type individual. He said that he could count on the fingers of one hand the sort of person who he was talking about, but that these killers were the most difficult of all to catch and by far the most dangerous. Can you tell me any examples of these killers? 146.90.140.99 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski ("the Unabomber") comes to mind. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I second this. Ted the Unabomber only got finally caught by chance, only after his brother happened to recognise him. Eliyohub (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

More than a few killed for money; Michael Swango apparently just for joy. The case of Leopold and Loeb comes to mind, who hoped to demonstrate superior intellect; if they had not bungled their first killing despite spending seven months planning everything, more would surely have followed.  --Lambiam 15:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Paul Franklin. Prezbo (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Missing fire of London

British Movietone News covered the burning down of the Crystal Palace in this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but apparently factual, film. At 00:15 it refers to 'the biggest London blaze since 1892'. What happened in 1892 that could be considered comparable to the Palace's demise, or at least sufficiently well-known to be referred to without further explanation?

I can see nothing in History of London, List of town and city fires, List of fires or 1892. The London Fire Journal records "May 8, 1892 - Scott's Oyster Bar, Coventry Street. 4 dead.", but also lists later fires with larger death tolls. Does anyone have access to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society's article Fires in London and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in 1892? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 13:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the Great Fire of 1892 destroyed half the capital of Newfoundland and Labrador. But comparing that to the Crystal Palace fire, which destroyed only the Crystal Palace, is an odd choice.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It would also be odd to call it a "London blaze".  --Lambiam 15:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The closest I found was the 1861 Tooley Street fire. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also a large fire at Wood Street in the City in 1882 (perhaps later mistaken for 1892?). [8] Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I too wonder whether the Movietone newsreader was the victim of a typo. In December 1897 Cripplegate suffered "the greatest fire...that has occurred in the City since the Great Fire of 1666". [9]. --Antiquary (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC) That's also mentioned, I now see, in Verbarson's London Fire Journal link. --Antiquary (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Verbarson: Fires in London and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in 1892 is available on JSTOR as part of the Wikipedia Library. It doesn't give details of any individual fires. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@DuncanHill:, so it is. The DOI link in that article is broken; I should have been more persistent with the JSTOR search. Thank you. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Unexpectedly, from the Portland Guardian (that's Portland, Victoria): GREAT FIRE IN LIONDON. A great fire is raging in the heart of the London ducks. Dated 26 November 1892.  Card Zero  (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the poor ducks.  --Lambiam 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole OCR transcript of that blurred newspaper column is hilarious. "The fames have obtained a firm bold", indeed! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Setting aside the unsung history of the passionate ducks of London, what I see in that clipping is:

• 1892 - Australia is still a colony (18+ years to go)
• which is linked to the UK by (i) long-distance shipping, and (ii) telegraph cables
• because of (i), the London docks are economically important
• because of (ii), they get daily updates from London

Therefore, the state of the London docks (and the possible fate of the Australian ships there) is of greater importance to Australian merchants than it is to most Londoners. So headlines in Portland may not reflect the lesser priority of that news in the UK? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was highly impressed by the rapidity of the Victorian Victorian telegraph system there. But my money's on Antiquary's theory, above - I think the newsreel announcer's script had 1892 as a typo for 1897.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which I have finally found (in WP) at Timeline of London (19th century)#1890 to 1899 (using the same cite as Antiquary). It does look persuasively big ("The Greatest Fire of Modern Times" - Star), though there were no fatalities. Despite that, an inquest was held. It sounds much more likely than the docks fire to have been memorable in 1936. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

January 4

Could the Sack of Jericho be almost

historical in the sense that the story of what happened, happened to a different city but was transferred to Jericho?Rich (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be. But then again, it might not be. Following whatever links there are to the subject within the article might be a good start for finding out about whatever theories there might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To believe that the events in the story are historical, whether for Jericho or another city, amounts to believing in a miracle. Barring miracles, no amount of horn-blowing and shouting can bring defensive walls down.

Jericho was destroyed in the 16th century BCE. The first version of the Book of Joshua was written in the late 7th century BCE, so there are 9 centuries between the destruction and the recording of the story. An orally transmitted account, passed on through some thirty generations, might have undergone considerable changes, turning a conquest with conventional war practices, possibly with sound effects meant to install fear in the besieged, into a miraculous event.  --Lambiam 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

[Edit Conflicts] The sack was described in the Book of Joshua, which however was likely compiled around 640–540 BCE, some six or seven centuries after the supposed Hebrew conquest of Canaan. Some scholars now discount the whole Exodus and Conquest narrative as political lobbying written by Jewish exiles in Babylonia (which the Persians later took over) hoping to be given control over the former territory of Israel as well as being restored to their native Judah.

The narrative logically explains why a people once 'Egyptian slaves' (like all subjects of the Pharoah) were later free in Canaan, but by then it was likely forgotten that Egypt once controlled almost the entirety of Canaan, from which it withdrew in the Late Bronze Age Collapse. The Hebrew peoples of the (always separate) states of Israel and Judah emerged from Canaanite culture in situ, though minor folk movements (for example, of the Tribe of Levi, who often had Egyptian names) may have had a role. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I heard the sack of Jericho in book of Joshua was an explanatory myth, not some kind of Exile claim to ownership, which is more logical anyway. If there were a more recent city that was sacked, it would be less than the estimate of 30 geneations of remembrance. I did forget to stress that when I asked if the story could be almost historical that I wasn't suggesting that Jericho's walls were supernaturally destroyed by trumpets. After all, the actual method of conquest in the story could be the connivance of the traitor Rahab.Rich (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, certainly the myth likely existed before it was consolidated with others into the written documents, just as stories about the mythical Danel may have been adapted into the fictional Daniel of the supposedly contemporary Book of Daniel describing his exploits in the 6th century BCE court of Nebuchadnezzar II, although scholars generally agree that this was actually written in the period 167–163 BCE. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The Israelites partly emerged in situ (though there was also a definite nomad/pastoralist component), especially along the West Bank hill-chain (running in an approximate north-south direction) where the Four-room house took hold among the rural inhabitants there. They were not originally city-dwellers, and their culture could not have been consolidated until the power of the Canaanite cities in that area had declined, and it's not too hard to believe that they sometimes moved against what cities remained, so that part of the conquest narrative is not necessarily a pure myth. Jericho was in the valley (not along the hill-chain), so was not part of the core settled rural agricultural four-room house area, but was inhabited more by pastoralists/animal-herders who became affiliated... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility, for URLs in text document

We've been asked to increase the accessibility of all documents we produce, esp. syllabi. I use WordPerfect, where I don't seem to be able to have a URL with a descriptive text in the way Word allows. 508 is the operative term. I'm trying this out: "Princeton University has some handy tips on what is called “active reading, on this webpage: https://mcgraw.princeton.edu/active-reading-strategies." In other words, descriptive text followed by a bare URL. Is that good for screen readers? Graham87, how does this look/sound to you? Thanks for your help, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies: I wouldn't make a general rule about that as it's context-dependent ... depending on how many URL's are in a document, reading them might get annoying. In general I'd prefer to read a link with descriptive text rather than a raw URL, because the latter aren't always very human-readable ... but I don't think this is really an accessibility issue; just do what would make sense for a sighted reader here. Graham87 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Graham87, thanks. There's only one or two in a ten-page document. According to our bosses, this is an accessibility issue--but it seems to me as if someone sounded an alarm and now everyone who doesn't actually know much about the issue is telling us to comply with a set of directives which they haven't given us. Instead, we are directed to some self-help course that involves only Word. It's fun. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop using WordPerfect and start using Word. --Viennese Waltz 07:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why, but it seems many legal professionals prefer WordPerfect. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Viennese Waltz, thanks so much for that helpful suggestion. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You can create a hyperlink to a file using WordPerfect. First, you select text or a graphic you want to create a hyperlink. Then you click “Tools”, select “Hyperlink” and then type a path or document you want to link to. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Stanleykswong, that sounds like it might work: thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Do web browsers display WordPerfect documents? I don't think I have a WordPerfect viewing app installed on my platform (macOS). Does anyone have a URL of a WordPerfect document handy?  --Lambiam 14:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Lambiam, WP translates easily to PDF and to Word. I use PDFs in my LMS. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You can see why WordPerfect is popular in legal circles at WordPerfect#Key characteristics (fourth bullet point) and WordPerfect#Faithful customers. 2A00:23A8:1:D801:8C31:BAC2:88CF:A92B (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the feeling this answers my question. Would I have to find and install an app that translates .wpd documents to .pdf or .doc documents? Would I then be able to tell my browser to use this app? The question is informative, not meant to bash a product that I have zero familiarity with.  --Lambiam 17:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've opened early WordPerfect (WP 5.1) documents using both Word and Firefox without any need for a third party translator. The only trick was changing the file extension to .WPD so that my computer could create the file association more easily. In the old days, file extensions were not so rigorously restrictive and many files ended up with extensions like .01 or .v4 or whatever. Matt Deres (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I cannot check if it would work for me, for lack of access to any WordPerfect document of any age.  --Lambiam 21:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of them, in the DOJ archives.  Card Zero  (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, finally an answer. When I click on a .wpd link, the file is downloaded. I can then open and view it with LibreOffice. (I can also open it with OpenOffice, but then I get to see garbage like ╖#<m\r╛∞¼_4YÖ¤ⁿVíüd╤?Y.)  --Lambiam 14:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, web browsers do display WordPerfect documents. If you google “wpd online viewer”, you will find a lot of them. Stanleykswong (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

When I google [“wpd online viewer”], I get two hits, one to this page and one to a site where you can upload a WPD document in order to be able to view it online. What happens when you view an html page with something like <a href="file:///my-document.wpd">Looky here!</a> embedded?  --Lambiam 13:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Only Docx2doc (https://www.docx2doc.com/convert) and Jumpshare provide online viewers now. However, there are still other offline alternative, such as Cisdem (https://www.cisdem.com/document-reader-mac.html) and Apache. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Some other text editors, such as TextMaker, can open and view WPD files. However, after editing, the WPD files can only be saved as other formats, such as docx or doc. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

One more thing that just came up--we got rapped on the fingers though the mandatory "training" didn't touch on it. We've been told that hyphens are bad. The internet tells me that screenreaders have trouble with hyphenated words, but does this apply also to date ranges? Graham87, does yours get this right, "Spring Break: 17-21 March"? For now I'm going with "Spring Break, 17 to 21 March", but it just doesn't look good to my traditional eyes. And on top of that I have to use sans serif fonts... Drmies (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• To give another example, I have to redo this: "Final grades are computed along the following scale: A: 90-100; B+: 87-89; B: 80-86; C+: 77-79; C: 70-76; D+: 67-69; D: 60-66; F: Below 60." Drmies (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Under its default setting my screen reader does read out the hyphens, but I have my punctuation set lower than normal because I don't like hearing too much information so it doesn't for me. The other major Windows screen reader, NVDA, also reads them out by default. Graham87 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks Graham87--I appreciate your expertise. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

      As recently discussed on the Help or Teahouse desk, a date or other range should technically use an unspaced En Dash, not a hyphen (according to most manuals of style, including our own), but I doubt that screen readers would notice the difference. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January 5

How to search for awkwardly named topics

On and off I've been looking for good sources for the concepts of general union and trade union federation so as to improve the articles, but every time I try I only get one or two somewhat helpful results. Many of the results are not of material about the concepts of general union or trade union federations, but often about a specific instance of them, and as a result hard to gleen a lot from about the broader concept. Typcially this is because of issues such as many general unions being named as such (for example Transport & General Workers' Union). I'm aware of the search trick that'd be something like "general union" -Transport & General Workers' Union but I've found it largely cumbersome and ineffective, often seeming to filter out any potential material all together

Thought I'd ask because I'd like to improve those articles, and this is an issue I'm sure would come up again for me otherwise on other articles Bejakyo (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Do any of the articles listed at Unionism help? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If you search for ["a trade union federation" -"is a trade union federation"], most hits will not be about a specific instance.  --Lambiam 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

January 6

What does the Thawabit consist of?

I asked about this at the article talk page and WikiProject Palestine, no response. Maybe it's not a question Wikipedia can answer, but I'm curious and it would improve the article. Prezbo (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's acronym (or an abbreviation) for the four principles enumerated in the article. Like how the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Abductive (reasoning) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thawabit is short for alThawabit alWataniat alFilastinia, the "Palestinian National Constants". Thawabit is the plural of thabit, "something permanent or invariable; constant".  --Lambiam 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that I'm not sure the article is correct. The sourcing is thin, reference are paywalled, offline, or dead, and Google isn't helpful. Other scholarly and activist sources give different versions of the Thawabet, e.g.This one adds the release of Palestinian prisoners, this one adds that Palestine is indivisible. The article says that these principles were formulated by the PLO in 1977 but doesn't link to a primary source (like the Bill of Rights). I don't know if you're a subject matter expert here, I'm not--actually trying to figure this out. Prezbo (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was able to access the paywalled articles through the Wikipedia library, which adds a little more clarity. Prezbo (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

According to this source, a fifth principle was added in 2012: "the objection to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people". However, I cannot find this in the cited source  --Lambiam 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked the Arabic Wikipedia article before I responded above, and they list the same four principles. Abductive (reasoning) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That appears to be a translation of the English article, so this doesn't mean much to me. Prezbo (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've poked around a little, and there doesn't appear to have been any change. Abductive (reasoning) 13:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The list in the book I linked to above is not the same as that in our article. The book does not include a "right to resistance", but demands the release by Israel of all Palestinian prisoners. It would be good to have a sourced, authoritative version, in particular the actual 1977 formulation by the PLO. Of course, nothing is so changeable as political principles, so one should expect non-trivial amendments made in the course of time.  --Lambiam 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That book is incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How do you know?  --Lambiam 00:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The text does not explicitly say, "among others", but the use of بها بما في ذلك suggests that this list of four principles is not exhaustive.  --Lambiam 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

January 7

Is there such a thing as a joke type index?

Has anyone produced an index of joke types and schemata (schemes?) along the lines of the Aarne–Thompson–Uther Index for folk tales? More generally what kind of studies of the structure of jokes and humor are available? Has anyone come up with an A.I. that can generate new jokes? 178.51.8.23 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

For starters, there's Index of joke types. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

AI generated jokes have been around for years. Just Google for it. They range from weird to meh. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Gershon Legman made an attempt of sorts in his two joke collections, but it was kind of a half-assed approach: there are a bunch of indices printed on pages, but no key tying them together per se. His interest was in the core of the subject of the joke, so he might have said, for example, that these jokes were all based on unresolved Oedipal drives while those jokes were based on hatred of the mother (he was a capital "F" Freudian). The link Bugs shared is more about the formats of the jokes themselves, though some are also differentiated by their subject (albeit in a more superficial way than Legman attempted). Matt Deres (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler has attempted to develop a theory of humour (as well as art and discovery), first in Insight and Outlook (1949) and slightly elaborated further in The Act of Creation (1964). He did, however, not develop a typology of jokes. IMO Victor Raskin's script-based semantic theory of humor presented in Semantic Mechanisms of Humor (1985) is essentially the same as Koestler's, but Raskin does not reference Koestler in the book. For an extensive overview of theories of humour see Contemporary Linguistic Theories of Humour.  --Lambiam 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

January 8

The Nest magazine, UK, 1920s

I have a copy of The Grocer's Window Book. London: The Nest Magazine. 1922., "arranged by The Editor of The Nest". The address of The Nest Magazine is given as 15 Arthur Street, London, EC4. It contains suggestions for arranging window displays in an attractive manner to attract customers into independent grocer's shops. I would be interested to know more about The Nest. I suspect it may have something to do with Nestles Milk, as 1) the back cover is a full-page advertisement for Nestles and Ideal Milk, and there are several other adverts for Nestles products in the book, and 2) one of the suggested window displays involves spelling out "IDEAL" with tins of Ideal Milk. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nest, 1922. M.—1st. 6d. Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co., 15 Arthur Street, E.c.4[10] according to Willing's press guide and advertisers directory and handbook. I also found it in The Newspaper press directory and advertisers' guide, which merely confirms the address and the price of sixpence. Both of these were for the year 1922, which suggests to me that the magazine might not have survived into 1923. M signifies monthly, and 1st probably means published on the 1st of the month.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Historical U.S. population data by age (year 1968)

In the year 1968, what percentage of the United States population was under 25 years old? I am wondering about this because I am watching the movie Wild in the Streets, and want to know if a percentage claimed in the film was pulled out of a hat or was based in fact. 2601:18A:C500:E830:CE4:140C:29E5:594F (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

What percentage did they give? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

52% (it's on the movie poster).  Card Zero  (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Tabel No. 6 in the 1971 US Census Report (p. 8) gives, for 1960, 80093 Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of 180007 Kpeople, corresponding to 44.5%, and, for 1970, 94095 Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of 204265 Kpeople, corresponding to 46.1%. Interpolation results in an estimate of 45.8% for 1968.  --Lambiam 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Who are Kpeople? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Countries with greatest land mass

Can someone please fill in these blanks? Thank you.

1. Currently, the USA ranks as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass.

2. If the USA were to "annex" or "acquire" both Canada and Greenland, the USA would rank as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass.

Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

See List of countries and dependencies by area, which gives a nuanced answer to your first question, and the answer to your second question is obvious from the data in the article.-Gadfium (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

4 and 1. But the chance of Trump to annex Canada is close to zero. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)