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

February 17

Ex-nazi advisers after WWII

A few weeks ago I asked you guys about how many nazi war criminals were still at large and got some answers. But I ended up reading about Alois Brunner, who is dead now but seems to be one of the worst guys who got away with it (sounds like a really bad guy that the world is better without). But I read his bio and I was like "holy crap, old man Assad had his own Dr Strangelove?" - I didn't know that. So, I was wondering - how many of these former Nazis ended up as advisors or special consultants to various powers in the 60 years after the war? I know about Von Braun, SS-Sturmbahnfuher turned "humble rocket enthusiast" - but who else had one? Did the Russians? The British? The Chinese? Any other countries who'd take in some fairly bad guys or bad guy adjacents and forget that they were bad guys in exchange for their expertise? 146.200.129.62 (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Von Braun was only one of over 1,600 German scientists brought to the US in Operation Paperclip (one of them was the grandfather of a classmate of mine). The Soviets had a similar program, see Operation Osoaviakhim. The Brits had Operation Surgeon. Cheers ❖ _hugarheimur 09:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Johann von Leers was welcomed in Egypt because he was a Nazi (not despite being a Nazi). A number of cases of those who found refuge in Argentina, Arab countries etc. lack the extenuating circumstances of rocket scientists welcomed in the United States and the Soviet Union because of their specific technical knowledge (though there were some problematic aspects to that also). AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NOT a reliable source, but to the point. Matt Deres (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? --T*U (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• The modern german intelligence service, 'Bundesnachrichtendienst', is built pretty much entirely on former nazis who were deemed useful in the climate of the cold war. Reinhard Gehlen was the founding president of the service. In other words, West Germany itself gladly put on the blinders, fully supported by the US, in cases where it was 'useful'. Alois Brunner, whom you named above, was on the payroll, as was Emil Augsburg or the captor of Anne Frank, Karl Silberbauer, among others. And i am not sure if you ask exclusively about war criminals. But nazis in general were hardly prosecuted in West Germany and 'denazification' was quickly abandoned by Konrad Adenauer and his conservative party in the west with many nazis in positions of power all over the country, from minor bureaucrats, people in the judiciary and police to army officers and business people or teachers. The vast majority got free passes, and even those that were punished got mostly only token punishments and were mostly released well before their sentences ended and ended up living pretty normal lives, bothered by no one (some notable exceptions there, like Joachim Peiper getting burned alive on bastille day '76; bastard deserved worse). So, the country employing the most former nazis in all imaginable roles certainly was West Germany. And a large number of those had to be war criminals, just due to the nigh unimaginable scale of murder, the depravity and criminality of the nazi regime. 85.16.43.210 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, East Germany, which basically just painted over the brown with red, was more thorough and much much harsher on individuals despite keeping a fair bit of the 'structures', which the west did not. More or less just renaming things like the hitler youth to 'Freie Deutsche Jugend', commonly known as FDJ in german, as one example. So, both systems did not really rid themselves of nazism totally and took what they viewed as advantageous, supported by their major power 'benefactor', for lack of a better word. People in the west and structures for indoctrination, among other things, in the east. Surely there were exceptions to that rule though. 85.16.43.210 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Otto Skorzeny:

In 1953, he was offered a job as a military advisor to Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, which he did not take up. He was an advisor to Argentinian president Juan Perón. In 1963, Skorzeny was allegedly recruited by the Mossad and conducted operations for the agency.

Several Palestinian refugees also received commando training, and Skorzeny planned their raids into Israel via the Gaza Strip in 1953–1954. One of these Palestinians was Yasser Arafat

There is some mentions to other activities and to other former Nazis working with him.

There is also the Colonia Dignidad in Chile.

--Error (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Korean obsession with relative age"

Paul Robinson's TV and the Failure of Russian Soft Power says:

So, yes, you can criticize the work of K-culture for being less than high art. If you like, you can call it pulp. But it's addictive, attractive pulp. And along the way, you get to pick up a lot of Korean culture - you learn some words, you discover lots of foods, you get to know the country's history, you pick up cultural quirks, such as Koreans' obsession with relative age, and so on.

I don't follow Korean culture, so I have no idea what is "Koreans' obsession with relative age". Is that a Korean version of the "Half-your-age-plus-seven" rule? Age disparity in sexual relationships has nothing about Korea. DuckDuckGo tells me about Korean obsessions with tallness, beauty and blepharoplasty but not with relative age. Can you tell me what Robinson means? --Error (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See BBC - Where asking someone's age isn't rude. Alansplodge (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thorough explanation. I don't remember seeing any of this in the Korean films I can call to mind (Parasites, Ode to My Father, The Handmaiden). It was maybe too subtle for me. --Error (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As in Japan (and to a much lesser extent, China), age = rank. Yes, there are many other sources of rank, but all else being equal (it never is), the elder gets more respect than the younger. Hence, knowing someone's age helps with honorifics and other cultural signals. It's a Confucian thing. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Error -- There's some mention of Korea on article Senpai and kohai (mainly about Japan)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What was Renoir’s first work acquired for a museum collection?

My notes say it was Lise (Lise – La femme à l'ombrelle, or Lise with a Parasol), which Karl Ernst Osthaus acquired in 1901 for the Museum Folkwang—just less than a decade before an American museum acquired their first Renoir. I don’t have any sources for this claim (I either lost them or misplaced them). If anyone has the answer, please share. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Just an (American) aside: According to this book, Madame Charpentier and Her Children was acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1905; another source says 1907. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Bal du moulin de la Galette says that it became the property of the French Republic upon Gustave Caillebotte's death in 1894 and "From 1896 to 1929 the painting hung in the Musée du Luxembourg." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Young Girls at the Piano was completed in 1892 as an informal commission for the Musée du Luxembourg.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This makes a lot more sense. 1901 was far too late, and your research confirmed my suspicions. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have (what I now realise is) a copy of La femme à l'ombrelle on my wall at home. Naturally, I always assumed it was the original, but reading the above I'm now terribly deflated. Thanks for nothing, Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

February 18

Dorothy Sweet

Who was the artist Dorothy Sweet, who drew London scenes in the 1920s/1930s ([2],[3])? What are her dates? Did she also work under another (married/ maiden) name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There's some biographical information Here. She seems to also be known as "Dorothy F. Sweet", per This. Several sites mention that she was a member of the Society of Women Artists; here is their website. Perhaps contacting that organization may be useful; they may have records or archives that can be accessed. --Jayron32 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you call this type of situation?

Say, the world's favorite color is blue, but the world's 2nd favorite color is also blue? And that can be possible, for example, people's who's favorite color is red, can say their 2nd favorite is blue, people who's favorite color is green, can also say their 2nd fav is blue. I'm thinking this situation is some kind of a paradox or anomaly, what would we call it? I know philosophy names a huge list of fallacies, but I'm wondering if these have names too? Perhaps this is also a computer-science question. Thanks. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC).

You've just described a type of Ranked voting system. This is not a paradox, it's actually used in many places as a means of selecting elected representatives. --Jayron32 15:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

In a single transferable vote scheme for multiple seats, Blue is elected and then removed from consideration. (Those ballots that contributed to Blue are counted again but at a fraction of their previous value.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

67.165.185.178 -- When people compile, say, a list of the ten favorite movies of a group of people, they very rarely would use your procedure (the movie which has the most 1st ranked votes on the individual lists as the group's first-ranked movie, the movie with the most 2nd ranked votes on individual lists as the group's second-ranked movie, and so on down the list). That would mean that individuals' 1st-ranked votes for anything other than the group's overall favorite movie would have no influence on determining the group's second-favorite movie, which seems strange. There are voting paradoxes, some with real-world implications, such as the Condorcet paradox, and others extremely abstruse and theoretical without much relevance to politics, such as the so-called "Arrow paradox", but they're not what you described. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I've just described a ranked voting system." Then what would you call a voting system where, if #1 is blue, then all the people who's favorite color is blue, is asked what their 2nd fav color is, and that largest majority, is polled? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

I don't understand the last bit. Suppose most people prefer blue, and among those who prefer blue most consider red their second-best option. Is the "largest majority" formed by these preferably-blue-or-else-red people? What is it they are polled about? How is the outcome of the poll reflected in the reported preferences?  --Lambiam 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct I just wondering what it's called. But the other way is to ask everyone what their #1 color is, then the 1 with the 2nd most votes is ranked as 2nd (as what AnonMoos above said). But then, you really wonder what if you just surveyed everyone who's favorite color is blue, and asked for what their #2 is, to see if it matches. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

That is not a voting system. It is a property that the outcome of some particular preference poll may turn out to have. As far as I see it is not an interesting property, so I doubt anyone has cared to name it.  --Lambiam 15:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

name this political figure

At the top of this article is a picture, apparently taken in 1994, of a Senator from Delaware between the then US Attorney General and … who? I remember her face but her name is not coming back to me. Please spare me looking up everyone who was in the Cabinet or Congress at the time! —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Pat Schroeder.^[4]  --Lambiam 20:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

THanks. —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

piero della Francesca di prospective pingendi

Hi another similar question

Is there any english translation of piero della Francesca di prospective pingendi

If not is there a way to find the text so I can google translate it, I have similar intentions for durers theoretical works

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.236.150 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

To what is that question similar? —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I already asked before if there was a translation of Albrecht Durer's workk on perspective in January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7830:DE40:35D1:7D90:829A:BD12 (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Under what user ID? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If it matters, the querant then (25 January) had the IP 107.77.232.225 (as is easily findable in the Archives). Presumably they, like myself, have a dynamic IP. So? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This, then.[5] And the actual archive entry.[6] It matters because the archive search tool here is garbage. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There have been two replys and neither have began to help with my question

Both the English wiki article De prospectiva pingendi and the Italian wiki article link to the original text in two different versions (hosted by panizzi, hosted by codicesillustres) but you'd have to be able to read the medieval handwriting. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.215 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

February 19

Millennium Dome/O2 roof

News images show that six segments of the roof of the Millennium Dome (latterly The O2) in London have been shredded by Storm Eunice. How many segments does it have in all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The roof's 72 segments each consist of two panels... [7] Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Perfect, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

February 20

Non-rebelling North American British colonies

• The central fact of North American history is that there were fifteen British Colonies before 1776. Thirteen rebelled and two did not. (June Callwood)

British America tells me that immediately prior to the revolution there were:

• the Thirteen Colonies
• the 7 Colonies and territories that became part of Canada
• the 4 Colonies and territories that were ceded to Spain or the United States in 1783, and
• Colonies in the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, and South America in 1783.

I'm wondering what she was referring to when she says there were only two colonies that did not rebel. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that would be the Province of Quebec (1763–1791) and Nova Scotia (its 18th century history subsection says some called it "the 14th American Colony"). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see British America lists others in what is now Canada, but these two would likely have been the most populous, as well as the only ones bordering the American colonies. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

But see FLORIDA AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: THE FORGOTTEN 14TH AND 15TH COLONIES (i.e. East Florida and British West Florida). Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Also Fourteenth Colony: The Forgotten Story of the Gulf South During America's Revolutionary Era - alas no preview. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Callwood is Canadian, so maybe a bit of northern bias? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• It really should be five colonies mentioned, as when the First Continental Congress ended, the delegates sent letters to the North American colonies who had not attended: Georgia, Nova Scotia, St. John's Island (now Prince Edward Island, which had recently been split from Nova Scotia), Quebec, East Florida, and West Florida. Georgia was the only one to accept, leading to it eventually signing the Declaration of Independence the next year. The other five can all be described as British Colonies that didn't rebel. Pinguinn 🐧 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It may be that US writers discount those because they were later Canadian, but that's just my speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• And isn't it about time that someone mentioned Newfoundland? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until after WWII. The few dozen English people living there in the 1770s probably got forgotten about even at that time. --Jayron32 14:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Also, Rupert's Land was also in North America... --Jayron32 14:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  But it was never a colony. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  It certainly wasn't natively governed. The Cree had no say, for example... --Jayron32 12:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I guess I'm no closer to divining June Callwood's meaning, but this is all nice information. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

February 21

Rules for how to name black keys in music

Good music theorists follow the "make sure you don't substitute enharmonic equivalents" when spelling a diatonic scale. Each letter name must be used once. That is, a D scale must use the notes D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D (with an appropriate accidental attached to any number of the letter names.)

However, some people recently are preferring a different rule: this is "always write black keys as sharps; never use flats". Any reason this rule is used by some people?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of is that if you're playing a scale, you start on the tonic and proceed in a northerly direction up the keyboard, so it kinda sorta makes sense to have D-E-F♯-G-A-B-C♯-D, rather than D-E-G♭-A-B-D♭-D, because F♯ is arrived at logically by moving upwards from E to F, and again upwards from F to F♯. To use flats would require moving logically from E upwards to G, then downwards to G♭. Easily done, but for learners it might seem counter-intuitive given that the actual notes played are all higher than the previous ones.

This is all fine in the context of a scale that is played once, in an ascending direction only. But it breaks down when you get into ascending followed by descending scales. And as for key signatures, forget it.

But this applies only to scales that have sharps in their key signatures: (major) G, D, A, E, B, F♯, C♯; (minor) E, B, F♯, C♯, G♯, D♯, A♯. When it comes to keys with flats in their key signatures, it makes zero sense to write their scales with sharps. E♭ major is E♭,F, G, A♭, B♭, C, D, E♭, NOT D♯, F, G, G♯, A♯, C, D, D♯.

-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, who are those "some people" and what's their "recent" activity? Is "some people" = "people who don't know music", by any chance? Before you expect an answer here, please provide refs that actual, competent musicians are doing this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Do a Google search on "F, G, A, A" and look to see if any of these will talk about the F major scale using A sharp. Georgia guy (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would I want to do a Google search on this? You made that claim, so you provide the links. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example: https://chord.rocks/5-string-bass-guitar/scales/f-major Georgia guy (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Home-made guitar-note finder apps may or may not be programmed to follow the standard conventions of western notation. --Jayron32 14:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've not heard the rule about avoiding flats; for example the C minor scale is written C, D, E♭, F, G, A♭, B♭. The sharps don't work here, because then you'd have D and D#, but no E, you'd have a G, G# and an A#, but no B. Similarly, the F major scale is written F, G, A, B♭, C, D, E. I don't know how you write that without a B♭. You write whatever sharps or flats are needed to make the scale work and give you exactly one of each letter. There are always seven diatonic notes in any standard major or minor scale or mode of the major scale, and these 7 notes are always given the letters ABCDEFG exactly once, with sharps and flats assigned to make that work out. You can play other notes over such a key, but those are always considered chromatic notes (i.e. "accidentals"). This is expressly for making the reading of sheet music easier; if you double a letter, then you need to make a line/space on the music staff do double duty. If you make sure to use each letter exactly once, you efficiently use the space on your staff. (In this description, I'm not including other scales that aren't based on the 7-note model, such as pentatonic scales, which are of course missing letters, or some of the blues scales which include multiple versions of the same letter. Blues music does not really have a sheet music tradition, which is why they developed different conventions.) --Jayron32 14:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the reason might just depend on what the key signature uses. If the key signature uses sharps, then usually sharps will be used (so A#, B# (C natural), C#, etc). If the key signature uses flats flats will be used (Ab, Bb, Cb (B natural), etc). However i Have seen some pieces use both. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A key signature will usually only use all sharps or all flats, but there may be Accidentals that use either in the same piece. --Jayron32 12:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know. It's just common that if the key signature uses sharps, then the accidentals will be sharps, and vice versa. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me. I understand these comments, but what I'm saying is that these days SOME people use the rule that we ALWAYS notate black keys as sharps, regardless of logic. This means that to them, a major scale can have 2 notes with the same letter name that differ in that one has a sharp sign, and it likewise can have no note with a letter name. To them, the scale is D♯-F-G-G♯-A♯-C-D-D♯. I want to know why this point of view is used sometimes. Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of that rule. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This rule is followed by a web site called "Ultimate Guitar". Georgia guy (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not any sort of rule. In fact, Ultimate Guitar even gives you the option to display the Sharps as flats. How do I know? I've used the website before. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Look here at another web site: https://www.scales-chords.com/scaleinfo.php?skey=F&sname=major Georgia guy (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. But do you know where it actually states that's a rule and not just a personal preference? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's just a personal preference, why do people have it?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not? It's not a bad thing. Just wait until you start seeing double sharps and double flats. Or Cb and B# and Fb and E# ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't follow the rules of standard music theory. We all learn it's important to realize that enharmonic notes are not interchangeable in music theory despite having the same key on a piano keyboard. Georgia guy (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

..... You're gonna have to show me something that says that. Because I have never heard that enharmonic notes are not interchangeable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

D-A♯ is an augmented 5th. D-B♭ is a minor 6th. Georgia guy (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wh- huh? How on earth does that make any sense when they are the same exact note? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the interval function in the music you are using. Enharmonic notes have the same pitch (in equal temperament; in other tuning systems they may not!) but they will be labeled differently (i.e. as either A♯ or B♭) depending on how the note functions within a key, a chord, a scale, or an interval. --Jayron32 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Partially repeating some of the responses above: (1) The black keys of a key instrument such as a piano are not notes. They are keys that are used to produce notes. (2) These keys as such have no names by themselves but may be designated by the name of the note they produce. (3) In Western music, the scale of F major goes F–G–A–B♭–C–D–E–F. No professional musician will name these notes differently. (4) Likewise, the scale of B major goes like B–C♯–D♯–E–F♯–G♯–A♯–B. Note that each has a different letter until we reach the octave. (5) When you play these scales on a piano, the key used to play A♯, a black key, is the same as was used to play B♭. While different notes, they share a key. (6) Until the invention of equal temperament, this was an issue. After playing a composition in F major, a clavichord or whatever key instrument was used had to be retuned for playing a composition in B major, otherwise the A♯ notes would sound off. On a well-tempered keyboard instrument, both A♯ and B♭ are a bit off (in different directions), but so little that we got used to accepting it. (7) Nevertheless, they remain different notes. Using the name A♯ for the B♭ note goes against the logic of the Western musical scales.  --Lambiam 16:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your logic makes no sense. You say this, "On a well-tempered keyboard instrument, both A♯ and B♭ are a bit off" however this is impossible since the same key is used to play both those notes. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You build scales, chords, and keys using intervals. Let's take that B♭ in the F major scale. That note is a perfect fourth interval above the root (F). That means that in just intonation it should be a frequence at a 4:3 ratio over the root. Now, lets look at the B major scale which has an A♯ at the major seventh interval. In just intonation, that is a 15:8 ratio over the root. It turns out that those two notes will not be the same frequency exactly. They will be off from each other by a few percent. With some instruments (like voice or violin) where there is complete freedom to pick a note by ear, this isn't much of a problem, but for many instruments (like guitar or piano) where notes have to be a fixed location, this creates an issue. So we tune our pianos and guitars using what is called a "temperament system", basically picking a value for A♯/B♭ which is somewhat between the two values, so that it's not exactly correct in either key, but it is close to both of them. Modern instruments are almost always tuned to 12 tone equal temperament. --Jayron32 17:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Forget it. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This video from the music theory YouTube channel "12Tone" does a better job explaining 12 TET than I did. There are probably other videos out there that explain it well too. If you want some good music theory channels, besides 12Tone, check out "David Bennett Piano", "Adam Neely", "Charles Cornell", all of which are really good to help you learn the basics of music theory. --Jayron32 17:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

See also our articles on Just intonation and the resulting problematic Wolf interval.  --Lambiam 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't use part of my signature for that again. I understand you were trying to make a joke but it seems like you're making fun of me for not understanding― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• An easier way to explain it is this: the musical scale was not invented to describe the notes of the piano. The piano was invented to play music. When I sing, I can sing literally any frequency in my range. My voice can vary in pitch continuously through a whole range of frequencies. However, we have found that singing certain frequencies together (either next to each other in a melody, or at the same time in harmony) sounds good. Those frequency relationships that sound good together are called intervals, and in our music system, there are 12 of them: minor second, major second, minor third, major third, perfect fourth, tritone, perfect fifth, minor sixth, major sixth, minor seventh, major seventh, and octave. We built chords, melodies, scales, and keys by picking specific notes from that list of 12. Now, notice I haven't given those notes any names, or defined any specific frequencies (pitches) yet. Just explained the system. If we're just singing together, I can pick any note I want as my root note, and then we can build melodies and harmonies around that by listening to each other and singing the correct notes (ear training involves the ability of musicians to pick out intervals by listening to them played together). We don't need letters or keys on a piano, or anything. Just listening and singing.
• The problem comes when I need to assign these notes to certain musical instruments that have fixed keys or frets. Now, I can't start playing at any note I want, I'm confined to whatever that string is tuned to. We need a standardized system so that all the notes sound good together. There are different systems, each of which have their own problems. Our choices fall into two categories: just intonation and equal temperament. A "just intonation" system makes the entire instrument sound perfect when tuned to a single root note. The instrument sounds great, but ONLY in one key. In all of the other keys, they notes sound a bit off. Like it's out of tune in every other key except the one you tuned your instrument to. In equal temperament, we take all of the 12 musical keys and "average them out" a little bit, so every note is just a little bit out of tune, but now they are all out of tune by the same amount so that we don't have to retune our instrument just to change keys.
• The other thing we seem to be having trouble with is explaining enharmonic notes, which are notes that have the same frequency, but us different letters in different keys. That's easy enough to explain. You build a scale or a chord based on intervals first, and then name the notes based on the interval spacing. The intervals come first, then we follow the "standard convention" of using each of the seven letters once for each interval. For historical reasons we don't need to get into here, the "unadorned" scale is the C major scale, C D E F G A B, which is built on the intervals of the major scale. If we build another scale or mode, like D minor or C Mixolydian or whatever, then we find that we need to choose notes that are either a semitone higher or lower than they would lie on the C scale. If they are a semitone lower, we call that a "flat" and if they are a semitone higher, we call that a "sharp". That's it. In order to make music readable on musical staves (i.e. sheet music) we developed conventions that mean we should only use letters once, we should use all sharps or all flats, etc. etc. These rules or conventions were invented to make reading sheet music easier. If you want to call the fourth degree of the F major scale "A#", you're not wrong, in the sense that you'll still hit the same key on the piano, except there won't be any "#" symbol on the sheet music. It will be notated as a B-flat. "But what about this website I found that calls it an A#?" I don't know, ask them. That's not how it's done in traditional sheet music. --Jayron32 18:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a concrete example of how a given note does not necessarily always have the exact same frequency. It depends on how the notes are tuned. Using just tuning, a perfect fourth (IV) corresponds to the ratio ${\tfrac {4}{3}},$ a perfect fifth (V) to ${\tfrac {3}{2}},$ and a major sixth (VI) to ${\tfrac {5}{3}}.$ Now there are (at least) two ways to tune the ninth (IX) from a given, already tuned note, say C. So we need to tune the D one octave up. We can use V + V = IX, which gives a ratio ${\tfrac {3}{2}}\times {\tfrac {3}{2}}={\tfrac {9}{4}}=2.25,$ the Pythagorean tuning. We can, however, choose to use VI + IV = IX, which may make more sense in the context of some scale (such as A major), but which results in ${\tfrac {5}{3}}\times {\tfrac {4}{3}}={\tfrac {20}{9}}=2.22222...,$ considerably different. The equitempered middle road is to use $2^{14/12}=2.24492...,$ neatly in between.  --Lambiam 13:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Georgia guy, guitar players frequently don't approach music notation in the same way as many other musicians. They often won't learn how to read sheet music or study much music theory. Since the sites you're mentioning are ultimate-guitar.com and chord.rocks, both intended for amateur guitar players, I wouldn't advise reading too much into it. As far as I know, there's no debate among people with rudimentary music theory knowledge or classical training in a non-guitar instrument. Firefangledfeathers 14:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Although.. a schoolmate of mine advised me I was to study bass guitar if I was interested in the contemporary musical trend once. I might have complied, but I did not. After a long while I was rewarded with what I wanted, an opinion about why the electric guitar was to impose itself face to synthesizer organs in the 1970's (Frankenstein). That is that because steel stringed amplified guitar players demonstrate where to is, ( or are ) speedy escapes from that well tempered, sure but also rather artificial approximation. How that, it's about what's leading you there: heroical pose, placid play on string bending making listeners fret about finally getting with at coordinated microtonality. --Askedonty (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Electric guitar players of the 1970s were hardly the first to use microtonal note bending to achieve their musical sound. Such Blue notes had been part of the standard jazz and blues repertoire since before Edgar Winter was born. Incidentally, the lead lines in Frankenstein are played on on an ARP 2600, which is a type of analogue synthesizer; but is capable of bending notes quite well using various knobs. There is a guitarist on the song (Ronnie Montrose on the studio version, Rick Derringer on many of the live performances you can find on YouTube), but they play mostly rhythm parts. One particularly well-known live version, where you can see how Winter achieves much of his tones and melodies quite well, is from the Old Grey Whistle Test and can be found on YouTube fairly easily (not linking due to copyright issues). --Jayron32 16:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Double-sharps don't usually require microtonal intervals. However, half-sharps do. See, for example, neutral third, which is a interval partway between a minor third and a major third. In the key of C, such a note would be an E half-sharp. --Jayron32 18:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Double sharps are usually used when the note is already sharped in the key signature (it would equate to 1 whole step, or to the next black key). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Some keys on the circle of fifths actually need double sharps, see G-sharp major. It is usually written as A-flat major because that avoids double sharps; the F-double-sharp note in G-sharp major (i.e. the major seventh interval) is enharmonically equivalent to G-natural. --Jayron32 19:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and my response above appears out of context because the edit I was responding to is here. It was rightly removed per WP:DNFT, but if someone wants to see why I suddenly brought up double sharps, I didn't. I was responding to a comment that did, and seemed to confuse them with microtonal/quartertone notes. --Jayron32 19:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I knew there were sharp equivalents to flat keys! I myself often get confused by double sharps because I have to think "is it a double sharp in relation to the natural of the note or the sharp of the note" and I can never remember which it is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

QED.

The OP asked about the statement "Always write black keys as sharps; never use flats". Any reason this rule is used by some people?? Yes. The reason is that they are musical ignoramuses. According to this insane idea, the scale of 'C major' should be written B#, C##, D##, E#, F##, G##, A##, B#. MinorProphet (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. Those are all white keys. The OP's question was about specifying black keys as sharps. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you overlooked the visual accompaniment.  --Lambiam 00:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that keyboard is a satanic perversion of everything I hold most sacred. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

How to sharpen

I was hoping to post a pic of the quarter-tone grand piano made in c.1924 by Grotrian-Steinweg, perhaps either for the microtonal composers Ivan Wyschnegradsky or Hans Barth (no article). Piano, An Encyclopedia (not sure if this is allowed) says this on p. 127: "Grotrian-Steinweg also made a "double grand", this with black, white and brown keys and 20 notes to the octave." See also Enharmonic keyboard. I recall seeing a photo many years ago, perhaps in the Oxford Companion to Music ed. by Percy Scholes?, but all I could find was this link, which shows something other than what I remembered. Definitely not this monster. Or there's always this cheat by Charles Ives with two pianos tuned a quarter-tone apart. MinorProphet (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What article lists "sacred cow" political issues around the world?

I remember reading an article which listed examples of political issues in democracies around the world which enjoy near-universal support in that country. For example, the article stated that in Canada, universal healthcare enjoys an almost unquestionable status, such that no political candidate would ever campaign on eliminating it. I think the article might also talk about how in the United States, support for Israel also enjoys a similarly universal status. What was that article? 2001:569:7FC7:6B00:4CFB:E701:F781:CA2 (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it: Third rail (politics). 2001:569:7FC7:6B00:4CFB:E701:F781:CA2 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

February 22

When will the Pandemic classify as over?

Greetings to all contributors, editors and admin, I have a serious question in a deep regard of the pandemic that is Covid-19. The issue is that I still understand that there are remaiing cases in the world but scientist are trying to label it an Endemic but still isn't such. When will this officially end and is there any proper insight as to how it ends? I wanted to post this on the talk page of that article but it won't let me, please help me answer some questions cause I am at a loss here.(talk) 01:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)SCPdude629

The classification of an outbreak as a "pandemic" is unofficial,^[8] so there is also no authority to classify a pandemic as being "over". Local health authorities may declare that the COVID-19 outbreak has no longer an epidemic status as far as they are concerned, which may not be a global outlook.  --Lambiam 09:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 will become another recurrent disease that health systems and societies will have to manage. For example, the death toll from omicron seems to be similar in most countries to the level of a bad influenza season in northern hemisphere countries.... The era of extraordinary measures by government and societies to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission will be over. After the omicron wave, COVID-19 will return but the pandemic will not.

COVID-19 will continue but the end of the pandemic is near (19 Jan 2022) from The Lancet.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Camp names for Camp 9-15 for Italian Wars of Prisoners in India from Second World War - urgent help needed

cross posted to WP:RDM. Please answer there. --Jayron32 12:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was a camp at Sihore district in village DELAWADI (ABOUT 45 KM FROM BHOPAL), Madhya Pradesh, India. It housed Italian Prisoners of Wars (POWs) of Second World War for a few years. After searching and speaking to British Library I managed the find that the ‘Camp number 9-16 housed Italian Prisoners of Wars’ in Bhopal, In India, but there is no information on camp number 9-15. We know that camp number 16 was hospital in Bhopal. The Wikipedia confirms the above - https://wiki.fibis.org/enwiki/w/POW_Camps_in_India I would be grateful if someone from the community can help or direct me in the right direction to obtain the answer to below question: camp names and/or location for camps 9-15 within Bhopal or which camp number represents the camp at Sihore district in village DELAWADI (ABOUT 45 KM FROM BHOPAL), Madhya Pradesh, India. I look forward to receiving the community support on the above. Yours Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOW63 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) You only need to post your question on one reference desk. --Viennese Waltz 11:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I am sorry for posting the question int two places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOW63 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"No evidence of Russian troops crossing the border"

I'm confused by conflicting information from reliable sources. Probably it isn't conflicting and I'm just misunderstanding. Our article on events in Donbas, citing Sky News, Repubblica, Newsweek, and The Guardian: "several independent media outlets confirmed that Russian forces were entering Donbas." BBC news article on the Ukraine crisis (near the bottom of the article): "There has as yet been no evidence of Russian troops crossing the border into the rebel-held areas of east Ukraine, despite Mr Putin's order to conduct what he calls peacekeeping functions." Is the BBC quietly contradicting all the other news outlets?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In a crisis the news is often confusing, and the way it is presented may add to the confusion. One issue may be that the news reports were written at different times. But I think the BBC should have used a formulation more in the line of “At the moment we have not yet seen evidence of ...". The fact that one has not seen such evidence does not mean it does not exist. Another issue is the definition of "Russian forces". Does this include mercenaries, or only troops that are part of the regular army?  --Lambiam 00:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, yes. So far as I can tell it's like this:

• Putin has ordered troops in,
• The deputy foreign secretary told the press troops have not actually been sent in,
• Some troops of some kind have been caught on video but might not be regular Russian army.

 Card Zero  (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Supposedly there have already been Russian troops in the area for years. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Factually, there are US troops stationed in over 100 countries, including mine. But I'm not panicking yet. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Generally speaking, those US troops are there legally. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Let's face it, most U.S. troops are in countries in the sort of "Nice country here, would be a shame if someone broke it" sort of way... --Jayron32 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Sure. Just think how much better off the world would be if we hadn't joined World War II. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC) That's a fantastic non-sequitur, but okay. We wouldn't probably have been better off. --Jayron32 16:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC) The question isn't “what would have happened if the US had not entered WWII?” Rather, the question is “What would those nations where US troops are / have been stationed since WWII have had to give up to pay for their own defense?” The obvious candidates are universal healthcare and welfare provisions … two things the US has not done particularly well by OECD standards. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Those U.S. troops are mostly defending those countries against having leadership that is unfriendly to business interests in the U.S. The reason the U.S. doesn't have healthcare and welfare provisions has very little to do with the defense budget, and everything to do with the rich people in the U.S. convincing the marginally-less-than-totally-destitute people in the U.S. that it is in their interest to fuck over the people poorer than themselves. What the U.S. citizenry already pays in insurance premiums and co-pays and the like would completely fund a universal healthcare system several times over. The U.S. people have been falsely convinced they don't want such a system. --Jayron32 17:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

February 23

What did Truman say that so shocked the troops?

In a footnote on page 291 of Mallinson, Allan (2006). Too Important for the Generals: Losing and Winning the First World War. London: Bantam Press. ISBN 9780593058183. we read "During a sudden attack in the Vosges Mountains, American troops began to flee. Some of them were stopped by Captain (later President of the United States) Harry S. Truman of the Missouri National Guard, serving with the 129th Field Artillery. He is said to have used language so shocking, learned while working on the Santa Fe railroad, that they promptly rallied. There are leadership tricks not taught at West Point - or Sandhurst". What I want to know is - what did he actually say? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Truman's account of 'The Battle of Who Ran' was given to Jonathan W. Daniels for The Man of Independence, pp. 96-7 and according to Daniels "...imprecations upon the maternity of the Irish and the courage of the Irish". The account of Father Curtis Tiernan, a Catholic chaplain on the scene is given in Steinberg, Alfred (1962). The Man from Missouri. pp. 46–7. "It took the skin off the ears of those boys." and "It turned those boys right around", which unfortunately i only find a snippet. fiveby(zero) 03:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, in the biography Truman, David McCullough writes: "In any event, Captain Truman stood his ground, and once having recovered his breath, let fly with a blast of profanity that had stunning effect chiefly because it came from the officer who, heretofore, had seemed so proper and reserved. 'I got up and called them everything I knew', was how Harry himself remembered the moment. He was livid and terrified." And after that, "With his blistering verbal barrage and the vivid example of his own fierce courage under fire, Captain Truman succeeded finally in getting things in control." I see no reason to expect that the exact words would have been recorded. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a bit longer passage from Steinberg's book: It was hard to believe that this brawling gang of fighting Irish would go to pieces under fire, but the men panicked and all except five ran for their lives into the forest. “I got up and called them everything I knew,” said Truman. The curses that poured out contained some of the vilest four-letter words heard on the Western Front. Said Father Curtis Tiernan, the regiment’s Catholic chaplain, who was on the scene, “It took the skin off the ears of those boys.” The effect was amazing, Padre Tiernan recalled with pleasure. “It turned those boys right around.” The words "imprecations upon the maternity of the Irish" suggest a qualification like whoresons, which is considerably longer than four letters.  --Lambiam 12:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Margaret "Peggy" Bacon

Could a kind soul provide a birth date and/ or a burial location for Peggy Bacon (radio producer), also a radio presenter and television producer, born Birmingham in 1918 or 1919, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying, but all I can find is the Birmingham Post obituary already cited in the article. There's a lot of interference from the other Peggy Bacon, who seems to be much better documented. --Jayron32 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Garment

What is the garment habitually worn by Maurice Yeatman, the local verger in the BBC comedy Dad's Army? Is that a surplice? I was struck by the top half similarity to Fred Dibnah in Fred Dibnah's Made in Britain. But the bottom half is different, of course. 86.188.121.44 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Our articles say a verger wears a cassock. Fred Dibnah, on the other hand, tended to wear a grimy blue suit which fit him like overalls (when he was being formal). Not sure what you've seen him wearing that's like a cassock.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it's the flat cap and glasses that does it. 86.188.121.44 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

February 24

Desperately helping Ukrainian civilians and a massive artifact collection

I was watching an Inside Edition video and a Reuters video on YouTube. They were about a woman with a massive ladybug-themed collection [9], [10]. But with the conflict arising in Ukraine, I feel I must help her, her children, their cat, her friend and the ladybug-themed collection evacuate that country and immigrate to the United States of America. It's only a matter finding the right boxes, documents and time. What do I have to do? Who should I turn to? Anyone know?2603:7000:8100:F444:D500:5C:3873:78B1 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)