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

May 18

The Gyges, Lord of the Ring?

I don't understand why no connection is drawn between The Lord of the Rings and Plato's Myth of Ring of Gyges.
To me it seems quite amazing how similar the stories around the ring are after all. Should that just be a coincidence? 2A02:908:424:9D60:1728:3390:1D6B:BA69 (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Who says no connection is drawn? Wikipedia draws attention to the connection for a start. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The passage was just removed as OR because it referenced "self-published" course material from an introduction to philosophy course from the Department of Philosophy of Oregon State University.  --Lambiam 19:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The invisibility power is pretty much the only thing the two have in common. Tokien was not very interested in Mediterranean mythologies, but he of course received a basic Classical education of the type that was commonly given to middle-class boys in England at that time. There's a little discussion near the bottom of the Ring of Gyges article... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Another commonality is that the ring bearer is corrupted by the ring. No just man who puts it on "can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice".  --Lambiam 20:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

However, someone who puts on Tolkien's One Ring is corrupted by the malevolent magical spells in the ring, while someone who puts on the Ring of Gyges is morally tempted and corrupted by having power without any social accountability. AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A quick web search finds many comparisons between LOTR and the Ring of Gyges. I don't think whoever did that revert helped the encyclopedia with it. There are many works Tolkien studies including whole journals like Mallorn. It would surprise me if the Ring of Gyges never comes up in them. 2601:644:8500:B770:0:0:0:BD59 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Find a reliable source with actual evidence that Tolkien had Gyges in mind. -- Elphion (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Apollo 2 cancellation

Today's featured article Apollo 10 says "After the prime crew of Apollo 2, led by Wally Schirra, went to NASA management with a list of demands concerning their mission, Apollo 2 was cancelled in November 1966". ("Apollo 2" would have been the name of mission AS-205.) I also find in Canceled Apollo missions "The AS-205 crew were Wally Schirra, Donn Eisele and Walter Cunningham. However, AS-205 was later deemed unnecessary and officially cancelled on December 22, 1966." Finally, note 2 for that article says "Not long after Gemini 12 splashed down on November 15, 1966, George Mueller of the Office of Manned Spaceflight cancelled Apollo 2.

I would like to know more about this prime crew's list of demands, but everything else I can find about that mission just says it wasn't necessary. Hayttom (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The information is cited to two book sources, citations #18 and 19 in the article in question. That would probably be the first place you should look for your answers. --Jayron32 13:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the numbering of the early Apollo missions is confused by the fact that the numbers were applied retrospectively and unofficially until Apollo 4. The real truth is that there was never any Apollo 2 or Apollo 3. Apollo 1 was not known as such until well after the fact, named retrospectively after the families of the deceased astronauts requested it. Apollo 4 (SA-501) was the first post-disaster launch in the Apollo program in November, 1967. Because there was never any flights formally designated as "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3", there are conflicting accounts as to what flights those should have been, based mostly on the unofficial speculation of various people based mostly on what they "considered" to be Apollo 2, etc. Besides the cancelled AS-205, Apollo 2 was claimed to be for AS-201, which flew before the Apollo 1 disaster; as noted at Apollo 1#New mission naming scheme, George Mueller (engineer) thought of the first three test flights, AS-201, AS-202, and AS-204 as 1-3, though I'm not sure how universal that belief is. In summation, there was no actual Apollo 2, not even hypothetically or retrospectively, except in the minds of several different people who "considered" certain missions to be "Apollo 2". It just didn't exist. Same for Apollo 3, which you can see is variously applied to AS-202 or AS-203. --Jayron32 13:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Another thing that may confound searches is that AS-205 did officially launch; it was repurposed as Apollo 7, [1]. The AS numbers are also a bit inconsistent; with AS-2XX numbers applying to Saturn IB vehicles, and AS-5XX numbers applying to Saturn V vehicles. However, even the AS system is not without its inconsistencies. It appears to have been started midstream, with the original Saturn I launches numbered SA-1 to SA-10, however starting with SA-6, the vehicles were renumbered starting with AS-101. --Jayron32 13:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), the fatal craft was being called "Apollo 1" even before the disaster. After that, obviously, the program was in disarray for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sort-of. Internally and officially, it was only AS-204. The "Apollo 1" moniker was something the press had started calling it, but there was no official numbering system for the Apollo missions outside of the AS-XXX system. That changed after the disaster when Mueller officially designated Apollo 1 and, later, Apollo 4 onwards became official designations. AS-204 was also recycled for Apollo 5, FWIW, as the same launch vehicle was used. --Jayron32 17:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Shades of Star Wars retrospective episode numbering and retrospective sub-titling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Right. Like when the scroll started for The Empire Strikes Back it began "Episode V", and we're like "HUH?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

From time to time I encounter someone saying that never happened, that IV was always IV. —Tamfang (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they never saw the original in the theater on first release. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Citation #18 is a book which I don't think I'll buy. Citation #19 doesn't seem to mention the list of demands on the the cited page, but I might read the entire (free on-line) book anyway and may come across what I want to know. Hayttom (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Rhyme scheme with apostrophes

I've been trying to update rhyme scheme with all the different notations people use for that idea, and get articles to use notation consistently. Does anyone know what the apostrophes mean in e.g. "ab' ab' b' aab'"? I see that on Comtessa de Dia. I dropped apostrophes from a similar string on Bestournés, on the assumption that this is the same as "AB AB B AAB". But now that I'm seeing it again, I'm not so sure? It's suspicious that the apostrophes seem to be separating stanzas, which is often seen e.g. "ab-ab-b-aab". -- Beland (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

In the uses by Bruckner,^[2] viz. ababc’ddc’ and ab’ab’b’aab’, there are no spaces. It does not seem to be separating stanzas in "Ab ioi". The scheme for the Bestournés song can be found in print here, together with numerous other examples. Note that this text uses two types of rhyme schemes, one with majuscules and no apostrophes, and one with minuscules and apostrophes. The introduction states that an apostrophe indicates "die überschüssige weibliche Endsilbe"^[3] ("the excess feminine [i.e., unstressed] final syllable"). I suppose that the stress in the b’ endings "-aia" of "Ab ioi" is on the penult.  --Lambiam 08:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

See also Masculine and feminine endings. This isn't anything to do with normal grammatical gender, but rather as poetic term referring to whether a word ends on a stressed or unstressed syllable. Generally, words with feminine endings are expected to rhyme their final two syllables, like "passion" with "fashion", which is considered a feminine rhyme. Words like "passion" and "luncheon", despite ending on the same sound, are not normally considered good rhyming candidates because the stressed syllables preceding the feminine ending don't rhyme. --Jayron32 11:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes more than the final two syllables. A case in point: I maintain that "presbytery" and "respiratory" rhyme perfectly. At least, the way I pronounce the latter word (i.e. the correct way): RES-prə-tree. But if you want uncontroversial examples: biology and theology; reiterate and obliterate; etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

May 19

did Russia offered (or planned to offer) Liechtenstein, the state of Alaska?

id 122.59.57.169 (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you do a crude Google search, you can find this theory propounded on various unreliable sources in recent years. Every such website I have found is exceptionally weak, and the assertions posted on such websites are dubious and highly speculative. When I search Google Books and Google Scholar for anything about this, I come up empty-handed. Who knows? Maybe some Russian diplomat asked the royal family of Liechtenstein about buying Alaska and were told "no". After all, why would a tiny landlocked nation without a navy, whose current population is less than 39,000, want to govern a gigantic territory 7,600 kilometers away whose only known source of income at that time was sea otter and sea lion pelts? The Russians who had vast experience operating in Siberia and the North Pacific waters were unable to make money in Alaska. Why would anyone think that a miniscule European country half a world away could run that business any better? The whole thing is highly dubious. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Any substantive factual basis for the claim would have an equally substantive curiosity value, so in that case we would see an abundance of references in reliable sources to such a refused offer, just like there is no lack of sources^[4] for the Alaska Purchase. The absence of references in reliable sources implies the absence of a factual basis.  --Lambiam 08:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The most promising, but still rather weak, reference that I've found is this 2018 article from Liechtenstein newspaper Liechtensteiner Vaterland. The title read "It is certainly not a rumour" (a quote), the lead is "In a letter, Prince Hans-Adam II. confirms an offer from the Russian tsar to the princely house of Liechtenstein to buy Alaska. He is not surprised by the lack of a written document." The article itself requires registration. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the tsar had a sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wild speculation, but maybe it would have been a deal whereby Liechtenstein would acts as an intermediary to transfer the territory to another major power? Russia sells Alaska to Liechtenstein, then after a very short period Liechtenstein sells it to country X. Russia could then deny having ceded this strategic area to Country X, a move that might have caused negative reaction among other powers with interests in the region? --Soman (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The article refers to a letter sent by the Prince to the Volksblatt, which can be read here.  --Lambiam 18:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If this happened at all, it wouldn't have had anything to do with the place we call Liechtenstein today. The House of Liechtenstein was based near Vienna and ruled over lands that are now in Austria, the Czech Republic, and Poland. The territory of Liechtenstein was a formality that allowed the prince to have a seat in the Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire), but it didn't have any great economic or practical importance, and the princes seldom if ever set foot in it. Some of the princes such as Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein were allies of Russia in the Napoleonic wars. So any such deal would have been to sell Alaska to the wealthy family to add to its large holdings, and not to connect Alaska to the territory of Liechtenstein itself. --Amble (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the letter by Prince Hans-Adam II, the offer was not to the principality, but to the House of Liechtenstein. He remembers that this offer was repeatedly discussed in the family. Note however that the offer, if real, must have been extended prior to the Alaska purchase of 1867. The Prince was born in 1945, so it is quite unlikely that any of the family members discussing this had direct knowledge of the offer. No documentary evidence exists in the family archives, which the Prince ascribes to the loss of significant parts of the archives at the end of the WWII; part was burned and part was taken by the Soviets.  --Lambiam 19:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Which of Max Pemberton's mystery challenges were taken up?

The novelist Max Pemberton (1863–1950) created a challenge for G. K. Chesterton. Pemberton wrote an unfinished murder mystery, and Chesterton then responded by writing the resolution as determined by his fictional detective Father Brown.

Apparently, Pemberton set several of these "challenges" for famous mystery authors: my Father Brown collection's introduction mentions that he also set challenges for Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) and Baroness Orczy (The Old Man in the Corner). Were those, or any other of his challenges, taken up? If so, in which publications can I find them? Equinox ◑ 13:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

St. Louis, Missouri - Union or Confedrate?

Was the city of St. Louis in Missouri a Union or Confedrate state during the Civil War? 86.130.77.121 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Union. See St. Louis in the American Civil War#Civil War. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, as a city and not a state, it didn't have the status necessary to be anything during the civil war except what Missouri was. Missouri in the American Civil War was what is normally called a "Border State" euphemistically, which means that it was a slave-holding state that remained in the Union. Missouri is more complicated than some of the other such border states, as Missourians went and got themselves a second government, which while it lacked any real functional control over much of Missouri at any given time, they were so recognized by the Confederate States of America, and they sent representatives to the Confederate States Congress, see 1st Confederate States Congress and 2nd Confederate States Congress, which lists them. Missouri's confederate representatives continued to represent the whole state, and so technically, one of those representatives was elected to represent the district that contained St. Louis. In a practical sense, Missouri was still mostly a Union state, but it could be argued that it was both. --Jayron32 18:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for the correction. The question is somewhat ambiguous. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In the Little House on the Prairie season 4 episode The Inheritance, a lawyer from St Louis had a box containing Confederate money. 86.130.77.121 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be added to pur article as a Reliable Source ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)}}

May 20

The Ku Klux Klan and religion

I know the Ku Klux Klan was against Catholics and Jews. Does that mean they were all Protestant? If so, did they describe themselves as a religious group? Did they base their terrorism on Calvinist ideas like the Westboro Baptist Church, or other aspects of Christian theology? SuperfluousSpecies (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Have you read our article on the Ku Klux Klan? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Many Klan members hated Catholics and Jews as much or more for ethnic reasons, or because they were recent allegedly unassimilable immigrants, or because they allegedly took orders from the Pope, rather than because of any odium theologicum. Meanwhile, Westboro Baptist was extremely obscure outside the Topeka, Kansas area before the 1990s... AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Some folks are less interested in theology and more interested in using religion as a tribal identifier. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention the general lack of sophisticated theological accomplishment of those spewing hate as if it were an ideology. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dilbert.com

I know that Dilbert author Scott Adams has been in some controversies recently, but many old Dilbert cartoons were memorable. They used to be archived on dilbert.com and that site now directs to some kind of linktr.ee page with no old cartoons. Does anyone know what happened? E.g. some issue with the publisher? Thanks. 2601:644:8500:B770:0:0:0:BD59 (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the Dilbert comic was dropped by its syndicator. The article says that "Dilbert Reborn" is now a "subscription webcomic". Anyway, many of the old comics were printed in paper books that are now often available at relatively cheap prices... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it was simply nice to be able to remember a specific one, and find a link to it that could be shared with another person. So I wondered what had happened to the online archive. Oh well, thanks. 2601:644:8500:B770:0:0:0:BD59 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil the fun, we don't know if the copyright holder uploaded that archive, which means we assume it wasn't. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dilbert.com was clearly an official site of a very high profile work [5], I don't think there's any doubt it had the right to host the comics at the time. Probably one of the reasons why no one has seemed concerned about our articles Dilbert and Dilbert (character) extensively linking to the site. The question over what to do with them now the site is dead does arise, but for the general issue of linking to them before they died, this is no different from peanuts.com for example [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

May 21

Does Amnesty International ever expel ordinary members?

Or refuse to allow people to become members? I believe torturers and war criminals shouldn't be members. Thank you. 136.36.123.146 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Some would claim that Amnesty has so many flaws and hypocrisies that it doesn't have much right to judge others -- see Criticism of Amnesty International to start with... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 01:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of those criticisms seem to be people and governments accused of human rights abuses trying to excuse said abuses on the grounds of "it was necessary" or "other people are worse" or "stop imposing your culture on us by saying torture is bad", etc. Iapetus (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Really? Does that describe the reaction to the stupid August 2022 Ukraine report, which caused a number of local or national Amnesty groups to bitterly resent the actions of Amnesty's London HQ? Does that describe the fact that since at least 2015, Amnesty has refused to acknowledge or act in any way against any form of bias or discrimination against Jews? Does that describe the "toxic culture of workplace bullying" within Amnesty which led to two suicides in 2018? Does that describe the mysterious missing money in 2019? And the 2020-2021 controversies about racism in Amnesty's "international secretariat" are kind of downplayed in our article by being given only a brief mention at the end of the lead section of the article, when they should probably have a separate subsection in the body of the article. And so on... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• A Google search failed to find any examples, but it seems unlikely to me that "torturers and war criminals" would have joined in the first place. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hanover

I know many in Britain were glad about the end to the personal union between the UK and Hanover. However, did Queen Victoria or the British government express any views on the annexation of Hanover by Prussia in 1866 and the deposition of Victoria’s cousin George V? 2601:1C0:8301:34A0:48A7:46A8:D8D0:CC07 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See "The Guelph 'Conspiracy': Hanover as Would-Be Intermediary in the European System, 1866-1870" by Jasper Heinzen in The International History Review, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun., 2007), https://www.jstor.org/stable/40110785,

British governments had been careful to distinguish between British and Hanoverian interests. The two countries drifted apart after Ernest Augustus became king of Hanover and Victoria queen of Britain in 1837. Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, Victoria's cousin, expressed disapproval of the annexation, and many British aristocrats were similarly anti-Prussian and pro-Guelph. The British govt. (the Third Derby-Disraeli ministry) had no desire to interfere in Germany's affairs, since at the time Britain had a relatively small navy and army. Many officials welecomed the unification under Prussia, since it would check the expansionist tendencies of Napoleon III and Alexander II of Russia; and Victoria, Princess Royal had married the Crown Prince of Prussia in 1858. (pp. 262-3)

Although Queen Victoria was dispproving of the depositions of fellow monarchs - George V was her 1st cousin - she consoled herself with the thought that a united Germany had been "my beloved Albert's great wish". (p. 263) The Duke of Cambridge had grown up in Hanover and was 2nd in line to inherit the throne after Georg V's's only son Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover. He was forcefully against the annexation and the ejection of the Guelph dynasty.

The Derby ministry, although opposed to intervention, was asked by Victoria to intercede, and successfully secured Georg V's personal fortune. However, Georg V's supporters residence created a hotbed [maybe just a warm bed?] of intrigue in London. Several hundred Hanoverians fled to England to escape Prussian military service, and a sort of 'Hanoverian underground' was established, with pro-Guelph articles appearing in various newspapers. Georg V (who was blind since 1833) was given exile in Austria by Franz Joseph I, and didn't arrive in England in 1876. Although many aristocrats welcomed him, Victoria was careful not to encourage the Prussia-phobes at court: "her ministers, whether Liberal or Conservative, had more interest in preserving peace than chiding Prussia for its political conduct in 1866." (p. 267) Now you know. MinorProphet (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, once the Prince of Wales married Alexandra of Denmark in 1863 and her father acceded to the throne of Denmark, conflict escalated over Schleswig Holstein. The Queen and her supporters took the Prussian side in the dispute, and were troubled by Bertie and Alexandra's favouring the Danish side. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

See Schleswig–Holstein question, which in the first question sums up the absolute weirdness that it presented to British politics "The British statesman Lord Palmerston is reported to have said: "Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business – the Prince Consort, who is dead – a German professor, who has gone mad – and I, who have forgotten all about it." In reality it was part of the long process of figuring out Germany as a nation, which really began during the Thirty Years War several centuries earlier, and wasn't resolved until, really, the end of the cold war. German politics was very messy and remained so for centuries. --Jayron32 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I seem to recall Bismarck getting up to some kind of shady jiggery-pokery with the Guelph fortune. DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do Americans and British people sound different?

Why do British and American accents sound so different? Even rhotic British accents such as West Country, Scottish, and Irish accents don't sound American and also non-rhotic American accents such as the Boston and New England accents don't sound British. 95.144.204.68 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Two hundred years and an ocean of separation. Accents evolve over time and distance. Even within the UK (and the US) the local accents have changed a lot over the last 200 years. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Some would claim that the difference between standard US English and standard British English is actually not that great, given that the effective separation date -- in terms of the establishment of populations of English-speakers in North America who substantially influenced the speech habits of the children of later generations of immigrants -- is basically the late 17th century. Brazilian Portuguese and Portugal Portuguese have a greater divergence than American and British English, while Dutch and Afrikaans are considered separate languages... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The question seems to assume that all British people sound the same. Apart from Scots, Welsh and Irish variants of English, there's still a wide variety of dialects within England alone, some almost mutually unintelligible. But they're all British people who speak (some form of) English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't assume that. --142.112.220.184 (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Because they are different. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read Accent (sociolinguistics) for some explanation. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

According to "English Accents and Dialects," there are three major factors in play, along with countless other issues. First and foremost is word usage. The definitions of words will change over time. "Pants" in the United States refers to outerwear for the legs. In British English, it refers to undergaments. There are hundreds of examples of words that have different meaning depending on which country the speaker is from. Second is spelling. In the United States, words are simplified. This is a result of the dictionary, which has different spellings in the United States compared to England and Australia. For example, "aluminium" in a British dictionary is spelled as "aluminum" in an American dictionary. So, speakers will naturally pronounce those words differently. Finally, there is cadence. All native English speakers have a similar cadence that non-English speakers hear. But, that cadence is not identical from one country to the next. It isn't even the same within a single country. When the cadence is altered, it becomes more difficult to understand the language. As an example, Indian speakers have a very different cadence which makes all statements sound like a question to native English speakers. Even if words are pronounced accurately, the cadence throws off the ability to determine the structure of the sentence. From there, you get into accents which are very different from community to community within any English speaking country (and exist in all other languages as well). But, without picking the correct words, pronouncing them as properly spelled, and following the correct cadence, trying to change your accent isn't effective. Now, I think that this book is intended to help people fake a foreign accent rather than explain why accents exist. But, I feel it is a good reference. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

97.82.165.112 -- There are a number of spelling differences between the US and the UK which do not indicate a pronunciation difference, such as "honour" vs. "honor" or "centre" vs. "center" etc. (There may be differences between the pronunciations of such words in various dialects, but these are not indicated in any way by the alternative spellings.) "Aluminium" vs. "aluminum" is not at all the same, since there the different pronunciation has nothing to do with r-dropping or lexical sets, but with a different basic word-form in UK English vs. US English... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

See also English language in England which identifies three main groups of English accents and within those, eleven distinct regional accents. The origin of this diversity is sometimes explained by the fact that England originally consisted of different petty kingdoms, whose ruling classes came from different parts of northern Europe. Add to that the various accents of the other three Home Nations, some of them influenced by Celtic languages. Additionally, accents can be influenced by recent migrants, Multicultural London English is an example. Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not only recent immigrants; Geordie is very close to a being Scandinavian language (indeed some sources regard it as a different language to English) due to some not-so-recent immigrants (starting 8 June 793) in their longships. SBE has a higher number of French derived words compared to more distant dialects due to another set of immigrants who arrived on and after 28 September 1066. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the United States was a British colony back in the 17th and 18th centuries and a lot of British immigrants brought along their accents, raised their children to speak that way and so on. But for some reason Americans sound nothing like a British person, but Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans on the other hand managed to retain their British accents. How is that.95.144.204.68 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are completely and utterly misinformed. Maybe you have a tin ear. MinorProphet (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to a British location, which surprises me. I expected that comment from an American IP. All regional accents are different. For example, there used to be a television show, 800 Words, about an Australian family that relocated to New Zealand. They stood out as Australians because they had an Australian accent. But, if you ask someone outside of Australia and New Zealand to tell the difference, it would likely be difficult. Being native to an accent does make it clear what the differences are. It then becomes rather annoying when someone fakes an accent badly, such as Daniel Craig's miserable attempt at a Southern American accent in Knives Out. It is clear that he got his tutoring from the Charleston accent, but misses it more often than not. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently located an Australian to her native town of Alice Springs in one guess after less than a minute of conversation (her accent wasn't coastal); some visiting Americans to Boston (although one was very particular to emphasise her "South Boston origins"; a Welshman to his specific valley (he lived a few miles from Aberfan); a Canadian to the east of New Brunswick; and a very long time ago a Kiwi to South Island because of her inimitable uprising twang. I reckon I can place anyone from the UK to within 50 or even 30 miles if they speak in the local dialect. I was fooled most recently by a young lady who came from Sheffield and had just come back from 8 years in Florida. In the whole of France there are only about eight regional accents, in the UK there are 80. But I am a collector of such things. MinorProphet (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea that Australians and New Zealanders have a “British” accent is laughable. They both have very distinct “Aussie” or “NZed”accents. Furthermore, locals can often tell what region of each country someone comes from based on their accent (Someone from Sydney has noticeably different accent from someone from Perth or Melbourne… a North Islander has a different accent from a South Islander, etc). Sure, the distinctions may not be noticeable to an outsider, but they are very noticeable to locals. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Professor Henry Higgins, I presume. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"You can spot an Irishman or a Yorkshireman by his brogue. I can place any man within six miles. I can place him within two miles in London. Sometimes within two streets." — Prof. Henry Higgins (as The Note Taker), Act One of Pygmalion [7] by George Bernard Shaw, repeated in Act One of Alan Jay Lerner's libretto for the musical My Fair Lady [8]

My father once told me that a colleague of his who studied and taught linguistics claimed that he could place any American's county (of which there are over 3,000) simply by hearing him or her pronounce the word "water". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

97.82.165.112, I never meant to say Australians and New Zealanders had British accents, I meant Australians and New Zealanders have their own accents but they sound more like their ancestors rather than Americans. I can tell the difference between all British, New Zealand, and Australian accents.95.144.204.68 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Our Australian English article says that its "most significant influences were the dialects of Southeast England. By the 1820s, the native-born colonists' speech was recognisably distinct from speakers in Britain and Ireland." The connection between Britain and Australia is only 200 years old against 400 years for North America. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

95: What do you mean by "sound more like their ancestors"? This is very far from something I know much about but AFAIK many Americans do sound slightly like their ancestors who came from Britain arguably more so than many people who stayed in Britain although it's fairly complicated and we can only go by what has been written since there are no recordings of those eras. See e.g. [9] for some discussion of this. To be clear, you should not conflate modern accents with historic ones. (In other words assuming people 400 hundred years ago living in some specific area of the world talked like people living in those exact same areas now, even without significant immigration or a switch in the language spoken is a mistake. Even assuming modern people living there sound the most like historic people who lived there compared to people all over the world is a mistake since it's not always going to be true.) An even more extreme example of this might be William Wallace. Mel Gibson's Scottish accent in Braveheart is often criticised [10] [11]. It might be reasonable to criticise it as a clear but failed attempt to emulate a modern Scottish accent. But if we're talking about it from a historic accuracy PoV, while it's true Braveheart got a lot wrong, the accent thing was an intentional and I think many would suggest reasonable decision to make a film modern audiences could understand [12] [13]. Noting also any attempt to emulate an accent of the era would be far, far worse since we know way too little about what people sounded like then although I think from what we do know, arguably a modern Scottish accent isn't the best starting point for William Wallace. (In other words, it's undoutedly correct that Mel Gibson did a terrible impression of what William Wallace sounded like, but it's not because he failed at his attempt at a modern Scottish accent.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What William Wallace sounded like is not easy to ascertain. The Wallace family were Bretons who participated in the Norman conquest, and were assigned lands in Wales because Breton and Welsh were then just about mutually intelligible. They subsequently acquired lands in SW Scotland where much of the population probably also still spoke a Brythonic close to if not actually "Welsh."

What William spoke out of Norman French, Anglo-Norman, his forbears' Breton, the local Welsh and/or Brythonic, and Scots, and with what accents, is difficult to pronounce on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Another thing to remember is that the British settlers in America wound up all mixed together. It's not like New Hampshire was settled only by people from "old" Hampshire. The accents that the settlers bought merged and morphed to become the current American accents.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

True… Although… the non-rhotic accent of Boston and coastal New England (“pahk yah cah in Hava’d yahd”) derive from the fact that many of that region’s early settlers tended to come from East Anglia… while the hard-rhotic accent of Virginia and the Carolinas derive from the fact that most of the early settlers in those colonies tended to come from Plymouth, Devon and Somerset (think “Pirate accent”). Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Much more of England spoke with the "Pirate accent" at the time. Non-rhotic accents in England, even among prestige classes, were not well as well known at the time, and did not become prominent until the 18th century. See Rhoticity in English. In the early 17th century when these areas were settled, far more of England was Rhotic. --Jayron32 13:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I never meant to say that Australians sound more like their ancestors than Americans, I meant to say that Australians sound more British than Americans, although the British and Australian accents are very different. 95.144.204.68 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Meh… I don’t think Aussies and NZers sound any more “British” than Americans or Canadians do. Distinct accents. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

To many Americans, Australian English often sounds like it has a strong influence from working-class London speech of former times... AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Aussie English reminds me of Cockney to some degree, although it's more intelligible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

As an American, Australian and New Zealand accents sound happy. British accents sound conceited and sad. But, I don't know all the British accents. I mainly only know the accents from Monty Python and Doctor Who. Then, there is that accent Ozzy has. I thought he was just brain damaged until I saw an interview with his school teacher and she sounded exactly like him. However, I can understand almost all those English accents. What I cannot understand at all is Indian English. They say something like "Customer Support. How may I help you?" I hear "Coozy reports? Haki dak-do?" Then, I hang up and go to online chat. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of the trouble I have understanding Indian English accents is based on stress patterns. Indians just don't follow the same stress patterns in speech. It's also a big part of the problem I have pronouncing Indian names.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an accent can convey conceit; perhaps this is an implicit stereotype of yours. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a standard British sterotype to use a French accent to convey conceit. I just saw it used by Stephen Fry on QI and by Jason Hughes in Midsomer Murders, two DVD sets recently added to our collection. I remember it used by Eric Idle in the Meaning of Life to portray a conceited waiter. So, it isn't new. I assume it is a standard use of an accent to convey conceit. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Baseball_Bugs --- I deliberately avoided the word "Cockney" in my comment above, since it has many distracting associations. AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

May 23

US Cabinet members dying in office?

Thinking about the things which have happened to various Russian Government Officials, has the United States had full US Cabinet members die in office since 1900?Naraht (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Multiple cabinet members have died in office since 1900. The most recent I know of off the top of my head is Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good(?) to know the deaths of US Cabinet officials generate the type of questions of whether it wasn't an accident that they are for Russia.Naraht (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many web pages and (assumably self-published) books about Ron Brown's death and how it helped Hillary Clinton become President ... back when it was assumed she would certainly be elected. That is the big difference. In the U.S., you can be very public about your studpidity. In Russia, you have to be secretive about it. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

See Here. That mentions (but does not name) that there have been a total of 15 cabinet members in history who have died while in office. Near as I can tell, this is all of the ones I can find.:

1. John Breckinridge, Attorney General, Jefferson, d. 1806
2. Hugh S. Legaré, AG and interim State, Tyler, d. 1843
3. Abel P. Upshur, State, Tyler, d. 1848
4. Thomas Walker Gilmer, Navy, Tyler, d. 1848
5. Daniel Webster, State, Filmore, d. 1852
6. John Aaron Rawlins, War, Grant, d. 1869
7. Timothy O. Howe, Postmaster General, Arthur, d. 1883
8. Charles J. Folger, Treasury, Arthur, d. 1884
9. William Windom, Treasury, B. Harrison, d. 1891
10. Walter Q. Gresham, State, Cleveland, d. 1895
11. Henry Cantwell Wallace, Agriculture, Coolidge, d. 1924
12. Claude A. Swanson, Navy, FDR, d. 1939
13. Lewis B. Schwellenbach, Labor, Truman, d. 1948
14. Malcolm Baldrige Jr., Commerce, Reagan, d. 1987
15. Ron Brown, Commerce, Clinton, d. 1996

Several of these died rather notable deaths. Brown, as mentioned, died in a plane crash in Croatia. Baldrige died in a rodeo accident. Upshur and Gilmer were killed by a malfunctioning cannon. Windom died of a heart attack while in the middle of a speech in Delmonico's. Most of the rest died of rather less interesting ways; many of the early ones died of "consumption" (aka tuberculosis), while ,many others seem to have died of heart attacks. Webster died of liver disease, and Legaré died of "the twisting of the intestine upon itself". None have been assassinated or died under any mysterious means. --Jayron32 13:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

While not giving names, the source does tote up their respective offices at time of death.

Overall, 15 cabinet members have died in office including  ::* three Secretaries of State,  ::* two Attorneys General,  ::* two Postmasters General,  ::* two Secretaries of the Navy,  ::* two Treasury Secretaries, and one  ::* Secretary of Agriculture,  ::* Commerce †,  ::* Labor, and  ::* War respectively. That equals the total number of presidents (eight) and vice-presidents (seven) who have died in office.

† Correction—There have been two Sec. of Commerce that have died in office—-Ron Brown (noted in post) and Malcolm Baldridge, Jr. (Reagan’s 1st Commerce Sec., 1981-1987). Baldridge died after suffering injuries in a rodeo accident in California.

—— Shakescene (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can all read it. You didn't have to copy the whole thing. That's what a link is for. You'll see that my list matches his with one exception; I could not find two PGs that died in office while the PG was a cabinet post, I went through every one in order, and there was really only the one. If you've got any names I have left off my list (I have no doubt that I have missed some as well, I always assume I am wrong in some major way in every task I attempt) please provide those names. Also, he (and you) both misspelled Baldrige's name. --Jayron32 13:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry — I didn't mean to offend. Not everyone enjoys opening outside references for comparison. And that comparison was not at all intended as any implied criticism. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realize that we should avoid giving references at a place called the reference desk. Well, I apologize for misunderstanding the purpose. I will try to remember that next time I think about including a reference for my answer. --Jayron32 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I can remember Eisenhower's first Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles dying in office, but in fact he died on May 24, 1959, barely one month after resigning his office on April 22, 1959. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess he doesn't belong on the list then. Several that I found, but did not include, also died within a few weeks of leaving office. I've paged through dozens of people in the past hour or so, so I can't recall all of their names, but I was focused on identifying people that actually met the criteria, not on people who didn't. Do you have any that actually died in office that I missed (again, I am 100% convinced I am wrong 100% of the time, so I am sure you can find them). If you find the ones I actually got wrong, please let us know. --Jayron32 14:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not implying anything, nor (even less) am I trying to correct anything: just mentioning my false memory. I'm extremely sorry that you're taking it this way (which is just about the opposite of my own intention — where editors add to each other's information); and in my own defence and experience, Reference Desk librarians give information (as you have done so valuably) at least over the telephone, as well as pointing me to books of reference. ¶ By the way, I had no luck trying to do a shortcut (and search for possibly-missed sources) by asking Microsoft Edge's Bing — which yielded nothing useful. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the twisted intestine condition noted above is called volvulus. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Frank Knox April 28, 1944 Navy
• John Hay July 1, 1905 State
• Charles J. Folger September 4, 1884 Treasury
• William Windom January 20, 1891 Treasury
• James William Good November 18, 1929 War
• George Dern August 27, 1936 War
• William Bradford (Attorney General) August 23, 1795 AG
• Aaron V. Brown March 8, 1859 Postmaster General
• Henry C. Payne October 4, 1904 Postmaster General

adding mostly from The Cabinet by Lawrence Kestenbaum. fiveby(zero) 16:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Folger and Windom were already on my list before you added them to yours, Fiveby. The other four were not, so I thank you for the additions. That brings us to 19 total, at my count. Still hoping for additional corrections. --Jayron32 16:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We should just create list of cabinet members who croaked in office Kestenbaum looks reliable enough. Or a category? fiveby(zero) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Meh to both. Feels like a WP:OCTRIVIA thing. A list would certainly be better than a category, but I'm not keen on either. --Jayron32 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Struck duplicates, added an AG, three two Postmasters General and an Agriculture. Feel free to delete any or move to your list. There are a few additional in Kestenbaum's list such as Anning S. Prall for Independent agencies of the United States government, I don't know on what basis they are included in a list of cabinet officials? fiveby(zero) 17:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Cabinet" is a bit fuzzy at times, but in general, in the usage here, it represents the United States federal executive departments, of which the FCC is not one of them. Not every independent agency is a cabinet-level department, only the 15 ones listed there are, along with the Vice President. (some of the above aren't listed there because they are not cabinet departments anymore; such as the Post Office (demoted in 1970 from the Cabinet to an independent agency), War and Navy (merged in 1947, originally called the National Military Establishment and renamed to Defense Department in 1958.) By statute and tradition, Cabinet meetings include the heads of these 15 departments always (they are permanent members of the Cabinet) alongside other advisors who the President decides on (usually at-will employees of the President such as the Chief of Staff and the National Security Advisor). You can see an explanation of this at Cabinet of Joe Biden, for example, "All permanent members of the Cabinet of the United States as heads of executive departments require the advice and consent of the United States Senate following appointment by the president before taking office. (these are the 15 permanent members) The vice presidency is exceptional in that the position requires an election to office pursuant to the United States Constitution. (the VP is also essentially a permanent member) The president may also designate heads of other agencies and non-Senate-confirmed members of the Executive Office of the President as Cabinet-level members of the Cabinet. (these are peculiar to the President, though for many decades, basically always includes certain positions like Chief of Staff). --Jayron32 11:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking myself that perhaps there could be a single list of major Federal officials dying in office: 8 Presidents, 7 Vice-Presidents & 15 Cabinet secretaries. It could be entitled United States Cabinet members dying in office except that not every Vice President has been counted as a member of the Cabinet (perhaps, however, all seven that died mid-term were counted as Cabinet members). —— Shakescene (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

May 24

Movie rating system

• Transferred to Entertainment desk

William Beale

Hi, I looked at William Beale (disambiguation) and I suspect that:

• William Beale (college head)
• William Beale (priest)

Both died on 1st October 1651, so I think they are the same person...
Any thoughts? GrahamHardy (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

They held the same offices during the same dates, so you are correct. --Amble (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit awkward, as the first article has by far the most detail, but "college head" is a lousy disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a well-oiled process for merging two articles together? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Nominated for merger. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

May 25

A city containing a city?

Is it right to say that Delhi (the National Capital Territory, NCT) contains Delhi (a city), which contains New Delhi (also a city)? Do each of these areas have a different mayor/governor?

Would that be the same case with London containing the City of London?

Does this happen anywhere else on the world? Bumptump (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Like New York City and New York State, there are multiple entities named "Delhi". As of the recent 2022 reorganization, The NCT of Delhi is composed of three municipalities (cities), known as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the city of Delhi), the Delhi Cantonment and New Delhi Municipal Council, which governs New Delhi itself. So New Delhi is part of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, but not part of the City of Delhi. Shelly Oberoi is the head of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and serves as Mayor of the city of Delhi, while New Delhi doesn't have a mayor, the municipal council has a chairperson, who is not popularly elected. The Government of Delhi governs the NCT, and like many Westminster-system based places, has a split executive consisting of an elected Chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, and a appointed and mostly ceremonial lieutenant governor, Vinai Kumar Saxena. Regarding the "city of London" and "London", the City of London is really a sui generis legal entity with legal powers and organization dating back to time immemorial; no one really knows how old it is; William the Conqueror granted a charter that merely confirmed its existing rights, having existed even then back to a time beyond which anyone could remember; the site of the Roman Londinium was essentially abandoned by the end of the 5th century, but the walls mostly remained, defining what would become the City of London, which was formally re-established in the 9th century by Alfred the Great (see Anglo-Saxon London). Though many of the Anglo-Saxon kings had used Winchester as their seat, London had the right to crown the King; one really couldn't claim the right to be considered King of all of the English unless one were crowned in London (meaning what we now know as the City of London). What we today call London is really Greater London, and explicitly does not contain the City of London, which is surrounded by Greater London, but is entirely independent of it, as it has been for more than a millenium. The city of London has the Lord Mayor of London, who is elected through an arcane election procedure that dates back to 1189. The Mayor of London governs the city of Greater London, and only dates to 2000, when the office became the first directly-popularly-elected municipal chief executive in Britain at the time. This video from CGP Grey explains the City of London/Greater London relationship. In some states of the U.S., where there are multilayered administrative divisions (state-county-township-municipality) there are places where there are townships and cities that have the same name and lie next to each other (and which the Post Office treats as one postal city) but which exist as distinct municipalities, see for example Plattsburgh, New York and Plattsburgh (town), New York. --Jayron32 16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I popped in to bring up the insane example of New York towns, but there's a few other weirdnesses in the US that I can share. Virginia has an arcane system where cities can be independent of counties, so we get a situation where Fairfax is politically outside of Fairfax County, but is still the county seat of the county. But then there's the simpler issue of towns completely surrounding others, like how Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are bordered only by each other and Los Angeles, or any other of the many situations where a large city surrounds a smaller one. An interesting one near to me is tiny University Heights, Iowa, which is completely surrounded by Iowa City, but contains the main roads to the University of Iowa football stadium, and so is purportedly funded almost entirely by speed traps set up on that road on game days. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the OP's use of containing meaning "is a lower on the administrative hierarchy than" rather than "is an enclave within", and answered on that basis. Neither New Delhi or the City of London is part of their surrounding municipalities, but each are part of higher order administrative divisions (the NCT and England, respectively). Delhi gets confusing because it is the common name of two distinct entities, one on the same level of the "org chart" as New Delhi, and one a level higher. It is part of the "Union Territory of Delhi" but not of the "City of Delhi", though in common speech both uses of Delhi may be used somewhat interchangeably and confusingly so at times. --Jayron32 18:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Taipei, Taiwan, is wholly surrounded by New Taipei City. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with local government in the U S, but before the 1974 reorganisation there were "county boroughs" which governed themselves and were administratively independent of the geographical counties they were in. And of course, the town of Berwick in Northumberland is across the Tweed and thus in a different country from Berwickshire. Although Jayron says

What we today call London is really Greater London, and explicitly does not contain the City of London, which is surrounded by Greater London, but is entirely independent of it

the City of London has representation on the London Assembly, which is the democratic arm of the Greater London Authority. To clarify that, the administrative units within Greater London are the 32 Greater London boroughs and the City of London. 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:ECC5:8A57:B434:4E93 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reverse" of the criterion of embarrassment

Is there a term for a "reverse" application of the criterion of embarrassment, i.e. that if someone says something complimentary about their enemy, it's likely to be true? Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear (to me) why complimenting an enemy might be related to embarrassment. Opposing generals have been known to admire the enemy's tactics, for example. Be that as it may, the opposite of embarrassment is pride. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is referring to the "criterion of embarrassment" rather than "embarrassment." The criterion of embarrassment means that if a person were to record something very embarrassing about their past experience, it is likely true because the person has no reason to keep a record of such an event. It is primarily used in Biblical academics. The opposite would be a person who did not record something very non-embarrassing about their past experience. I would consider that humility, letting someone else make a record of it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

My use of "reverse" is probably a little unclear, but I'm asking if there's a name for the idea that a good thing said about one's opponent is likely to be true, in the same way that a bad thing said about oneself is likely to be true. Lazar Taxon (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Criterion of embarrassment. --Jayron32 18:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)