Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous 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

July 19

Religious resurgence -- when and why?

I have a couple of questions about the currently observed trend of desecularization in the USA and certain other countries: (1) approximately when did this trend start (i.e. when did the growth of certain religions, such as evangelical Christianity, first exceed general population growth after the late 19th/early 20th-century decline), and (2) what were/are the main causative factors driving this trend? (And yes, I've read the article, but it's long on the what and the where and very short on the why -- and the why is what I want to know most of all!) 2601:646:9882:46E0:68D6:F1B2:B25B:614E (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
On second thought, my first question (about when did it start) has been answered (I've just read the article about the Fourth Great Awakening, and it says it started in the early 60s) -- but I still want to know what was (and still is) driving it! 2601:646:9882:46E0:68D6:F1B2:B25B:614E (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a particular special interest of mine (in the sense of a hobby, not much more). My personal and unpopular opinion is that quite a bit you will find on this subject is either wrong, misguided, biased, or just a fabrication. That said, I think you can find a happy medium (although somewhat forced) if you analyze opinions from theists and non-theists, and compare the two. Non-theists, for example, do not accept that desecularization is even occurring and point to the rise of self-identified "nones" in surveys and the decline of church attendance. It's greatly amusing to me, because I'm a self-identified non-theist who disagrees with my fellow atheists on this particular point to great consternation. In other words, yes, less people are identifying with established religious institutions, but "religion" (however you want to define it) has not gone away. The rise of QAnon and conspirituality are two examples of new religious movements. One of the things I've noticed is that the theories of desecularization are quite different by region, with the US as a kind of religious outlier, so you need to keep that in mind. With that said, I think the rise of desecularization is, based on my own reading of the literature, due to the rise of uncertainty, the failure of the US education system to teach critical thinking skills and toolsets, and the use of religion as a social force for reproduction (religious people have more babies). My guess as to when it started in the US probably has to do with the rise of Reagan and Christian fundamentalism in the 1980s. Again, this is a minority opinion, as the predominant theory is that desecularization might be a short-term visible phenomenon in the face of a long-term downturn in religious adherence. That's what the stats say, but nobody really knows. I'm convinced, however, that as uncertainty rises (climate change, economic insecurity, government destabilization, civil strife) and stability decreases, religion fills the void for many people. In other words, stability, social mobility, security, education, and overall indices of happiness result in less religion. I think religious organizations know this, which is why they fight so hard against government intervention and support. The less of a social net there is for people, the more of a niche religion tends to fill. In other words, the evidence shows that wealthier nations that invest in their citizens and have lower levels of inequality also have lower levels of religion. Again, theists will fight this conclusion tooth and nail, so don't expect any consensus to emerge. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Amd now for a reference:

Depending on whether religious switching continues at recent rates, speeds up or stops entirely, the projections show Christians of all ages shrinking from 64% to between a little more than half (54%) and just above one-third (35%) of all Americans by 2070. Over that same period, “nones” would rise from the current 30% to somewhere between 34% and 52% of the U.S. population.

Modeling the Future of Religion in America from the Pew Research Center. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the report I was referring to, however, I don't believe it is true. See growth of religion:

According to the Pew Research Center, Christianity is declining in the United States while non-Christian faiths are growing. The 2014 Religious Landscape Study finds a large majority (87.6%) of those who were raised as Christians in the United States still identify as such, while the rest who no longer identify as Christians mostly identify as religiously unaffiliated, and the number of those leaving Christianity in the United States is greater than the number of converts; however, the number of those convert to evangelical Christianity in the United States is greater than the number of those leaving that faith. While on the other hand, in 2017, scholars Landon Schnabel and Sean Bock at Harvard University and Indiana University argued that while "Mainline Protestant" churches has declined in the United States since the late 1980s, but many of them do not leave Christianity, but rather convert to another Christian denomination, in particularly to evangelicalism. Schnabel and Bock argued also that evangelicalism and Conservative Christianity has persisted and expanded in the United States. And according to Eric Kaufmann from Harvard University and University of London, Christian fundamentalism is expanding in the United States.

Also, given the rise of uncertainty and inequality in the US, I don't see religion declining any time soon. Furthermore, churches of all faiths are making great use of social media. I was incredibly surprised to see how adept LDS is at using social media, to the point where I think they are actually increasing church membership and retention using services like Instagram and TikTok in surprising and unique ways. If I wasn't a non-theist, and didn't think LDS was nothing more than fan fiction or science fiction, their social media presence would be highly persuasive. They make use of accounts that sell religion to the public using beautiful women, handsome men, and sexually suggestive messages in ways that I've never seen another religion use before. This must be appealing to someone or they wouldn't be doing it. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

So, you're saying that this is due to a combination of a high birth rate, the use of social media and purely external factors (uncertainty creating fear which religion addresses)? This sounds convincing -- any other factors contributing to this? (For the record, I am an apostate from Christianity, but I believe that religion is growing overall -- as the article states, there are two opposite processes happening, on one hand religion has less influence over public policy and traditional churches are hemorrhaging members, whereas on the other hand the newer churches are growing at a high rate!) 2601:646:9882:46E0:68D6:F1B2:B25B:614E (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As for other factors, yes. White evangelicals in the US have intentionally created what is called minoritarianism, or the tyranny of the minority. The problem at hand in the US, therefore, isn’t the decline or gain of religious adherents, but the preservation of minority voting preferences and policies that promote religion on an equal or greater basis than non-theists, thereby giving a dwindling minority greater power and control to supplant and maintain their weakening numbers. This is probably the greatest driver of desecularization in the US, as it forces religion upon those who would otherwise not be exposed to it or not wish to participate. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this is off-topic altogether, because I was asking about the increase in numbers and not in any kind of political influence (which is, in fact, weakening, not increasing) -- second of all, any kind of ideologically-driven minoritarianism is impossible in the USA (or indeed in any democracy) unless there is in fact a hidden majority supporting the minority's political goals (in which case it would not really be minoritarianism anymore) -- third of all, your argument is self-contradictory and relies on circular reasoning (if the evangelicals are really weakening, then they would not be able to gain more power and control, because they would not be able to promote religious-based policies unless they already had the political power in the first place) -- and last but not least, your characterization of evangelicals promoting religion as a "problem" does not represent any kind of consensus, because a religious person would say the exact opposite thing, namely that religion is a good thing and that it's the weakening of its influence which is the problem! (For the record, I do not believe that evangelical Christianity is either a good or a bad thing, I believe that it's just something which a large number of Americans want to believe in, and so be it -- if anything, it is the spread of Islam which is a problem!) 2601:646:9882:46E0:9CE5:B0B3:6C93:5E97 (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you’re wrong on all of those points, but Lambiam is about to bring out the paddle, so if you’re interested in discussing this further, take it to my user talk page and I will explain the problem in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing any alleged "problems" with Christianity (evangelical or otherwise) -- my only interest in this matter is that of cause and effect, and in particular which actions, if any, by the Christian churches in question have caused them to turn around their decline in membership so spectacularly! (If you must know, this is part of my research on the cause-effect relationships of various advancements in human knowledge in general, which does include religion -- while the role of religion is usually minor, it has at times proved crucial in advancing human knowledge, like with their desire to spread their beliefs leading to their early support of the printing industry, which had in turn contributed to the Reformation, which in turn has led (in several steps) to the Scientific Revolution -- so it cannot be completely discounted!) So, if you want to go back on topic and talk more about contributing factors to the most recent great awakening (and if you are able and willing to maintain WP:NPOV while doing so), then by all means go ahead -- but if not, then let the matter rest! 2601:646:9882:46E0:9CE5:B0B3:6C93:5E97 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But problems with Islam are okay? Try to be a tad consistent. I don't think your research is worth anything if you can't critically examine the reason for the decline or gain. Good luck to you in your future endeavors. You have a lot to learn...about everything. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

YOU are the one who has a lot to learn about logical thinking in particular -- you've just made a false equivalence, there is A WHOLE WORLD of difference between Islam and ANY kind of Christianity (whether evangelical or otherwise), and THE crucial difference is, it wasn't white Evangelicals (or non-white Evangelicals, or non-Evangelical Christians, for that matter) who did 9/11! And THAT is, in and of itself, more than enough to prove me RIGHT on at least this one specific issue, that the spread of Islam IS a problem whereas that of Christianity (evangelical or otherwise) is NOT! In any case, I came here with a completely non-political question about the reasons why evangelical Christianity is doing so well at getting new members -- I did NOT come here to read political diatribes against evangelical Christianity (or for it, for that matter), much less to have my own intellectual abilities personally insulted! 73.162.86.152 (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahem, may I remind you gentlepeople that the Reference desk is not a place for debate? References to further studies on desecularization or published critical reviews of the Pew Research Center study are of course welcome.  --Lambiam 22:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) finds that:

Notably, the proportion of white Christians in the country has [recently] remained steady, at 42%, after a long decline from 72% in 1990 to 42% in 2018.

The white Christian portion of the U.S. adult population includes 14% who are white evangelical Protestant, 14% who are white mainline (non-evangelical) Protestant, 13% who are white Catholic, and small proportions of white Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Orthodox Christians. The proportion of white evangelical Protestants in the population steadily declined starting in 2006 (when they made up 23% of the population) before settling at about 14% over the past few years. White mainline (non-evangelical) Protestants and white Catholics accounted for similar portions of the population in 2022, at 14% and 13%, respectively. Both these groups have declined as a proportion of the population since 2006, when they were at 18% and 16%, respectively. However, these drop-offs of roughly four percentage points are less pronounced than the nine-percentage-point decline in white evangelical Protestant affiliation. The religiously unaffiliated category has absorbed much of the fall-off. [1]

Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Gallup, Inc. says:

*In 2020, 47% of U.S. adults belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque

*Down more than 20 points from turn of the century

*Change primarily due to rise in Americans with no religious preference

U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, this poll says that we're NOT seeing an increase in religious affiliation??? But what of the statistics from 1960 through 1990 -- maybe it's just a matter of timeframe??? Also, what of NON-white populations -- maybe THEY are the ones who are becoming more religious, while whites are becoming less so??? 73.162.86.152 (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read the PRRI link that I posted, which says that non-white churches are neither increasing nor declining. Three separate reliable sources have evidence that religious affiliation is declining in the USA, which suggests that the original premise of this question is flawed, and that there is no overall increase in religiosity. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If this study is correct, then it means that religiosity has been declining since 1990 -- but once again, what about the period between 1960 and 1990, when the Fourth Great Awakening allegedly took place? 2601:646:9882:46E0:4CE6:2E89:F4A5:404A (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The decline in observance of religion may be related to peace. Some argue that that the present is probably the most peaceful time in the history of the human species. It is also thought that religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. If one wishes to believe this, then effects of global warming is likely to result in growth of religion. manya (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thus far I've seen no evidence that the effects of climate change, whether already observable or predicted by theory, evoke substantial fear among the general public. They don't look up.  --Lambiam 16:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

July 21

Vauban's gradual attack

Hello. Are there available sources for writing a separate article about the theory of Vauban's gradual attack, and at the same time, are there any sources that Vauban's gradual attack led to a faster capture of fortresses than a conventional assault? Thank you in advance. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There are some sources at Sébastien_Le_Prestre_de_Vauban#Offensive_doctrines;_siege_warfare. I don't know if there is enough for a new article. Consider expanding that section instead, and if it becomes too large then split it out. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Vauban's three-parallel system, then it gets a mention at Polygonal fort which is one of my scribblings. The references are:

• Hogg, Ian V. (1975). Fortress: A History of Military Defence. London: Macdonald and Jane's. ISBN 0-356-08122-2. pp. 51-52
• Oswald, James (2007). Vauban Under Siege: Engineering Efficiency and Martial Vigor in the War of the Spanish Succession. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-15489-6. p. 12
• Duffy, Christopher (2017). The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great 1660–1789. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-92464-2. p. 41

I have the Hogg book at home, so could send you the relevant text if required. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

July 22

Football (soccer) curiosity, thank you very much

Hello. I'll come straight to the point. Before it became customary to specify the goal on a penalty kick, for example, the scoreboards, which at the time were alphanumeric, I'm speaking mainly of the 70s and 80s, only the scorer's name appeared without the PK next to it. But what happened in the case of an own goal? Did you put the name of the author of the own goal with OG written on it, or did you put nothing as in the case of a goal scored on a penalty kick? Thank you very much. Andreoto (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Which scoreboards, in which stadia or on which TV channels, in which countries? It seems unlikely that practice was uniform worldwide, or even consistent from stadium to stadium, and likely changed over the 20+ years' span you imply as technology evolved.

(I must confess that although I although I often watched football on TV (in the UK) when I was able to, and attended a handful of live professional games (including one in West Germany), I have no recollection of noticing this detail.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The scoreboard at Hillsborough in 1970 was rather simpler; only the score, no scorers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also at Wembley in 1973. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

A bit more sophisticated at Wembley in 1994, but still no scorers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not specifying. I was referring to European stadiums, especially English ones actually. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreoto (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the AC Milan scoreboard in 1994 - there are names of scorers but no other detail. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Um, names and times, wouldn't that be? --142.112.221.64 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

July 23

Writing historic biographies

Back again with another question.

What is an effective way to write a biography of a person who had a lengthy career in multiple areas during the same span of time?

I am currently working on a draft about a man who had career as a real estate developer by flipping land and building subdivisions, but also an equally pertinent civic career by assisting in local government affairs and taking part in philanthropy. These two career paths take place during the same time, but constructing a meaningful bio based on two engagements in one section seems inefficient and messy (currently only working on real estate). If I split them into two different sections, it would also seem out of place hopping from the end of one career in, say, 1940s and jumping back to the earlier engagement in the 1910s. Does Wikipedia have a Manuel of style guideline for biographies that lays out how multiple careers should be written (not MOS:BIO)? Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I can give you my opinion, but the link you provided involves many different people. Could you name the specific person in question? I ask, because each person should be treated separately based on their source coverage. There’s no one size fits all answer. Perhaps one way to move forward is to look at how articles do it. Elon Musk is one example. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This one, a C. Perry Snell. To give you an idea of the civic engagement, it mainly delves into his involvement in establishing St. Petersburg, Florida's waterfront parks, investment in social clubs and businesses, donation of art, sculptures, and private land for parks, and establishing early institutions of the city, such as the St. Petersburg Woman's Club. I was looking at Donald Trump (similar engagement areas, not content), but was not sure if the narrative jumps in timeline from sub-section to sub-section were appropriate or if we have another point of reference. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Both engagements roughly started in 1906, and ended during the Great Depression and his death. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the narrative jumps in the timeline are fine by subsection, as long as the establishments are chronological. Elon Musk does just that. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I get easily stuck when there is not a cookie cutter guideline to help with what content goes where. Makes sense in the realm of Wikipedia, haha. Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

No question that it's one of the hardest things to do. My approach when writing big chronological articles (some I've written: a biography, a technology, a company, an artistic style) has been to split it into general sections of time and within them approach it thematically, but you do have to let the content guide you a bit in deciding what those sections are going to be. You could also write an ending section with a title like "Influence" or "Legacy" which describe the person's overall effect on society not the chronology of their career. I find endnotes very helpful to fit in asides which are interesting or worth clarifying but shouldn't get in the way of the main thread of the story. Taking time away from it can help with seeing what's important. With my wood type article I found that the first version I published just tailed off with no real ending or conclusion: I realised that adding an "after people stopped using it" section helped round things off and make it satisfying. I find it's helpful to decide the "detail level" you're going to cover in the article: are you going to explain everything or are you going to say "there were lots of companies in the industry" and link to sources for anyone who needs to know more? You can decide this based on how much source materials you have.

Sometimes there's something unusual. I found when writing the article on Vincent Figgins that I really needed to put a list of the few primary sources at the front, otherwise I was shoe-horning in explanations of what they are at the most random places. With only a few sources kicking off with a bullet point list felt structurally right.

I've luckily been able to visit some big libraries to do research. Reading through the entire back archives of journals is like nothing else, you never know what's going to come up. It looks like you've already done this, but some of the most important bits of editing I've done have been realising "look, I think this is very interesting, but no source discusses it. I wonder if I can research this more deeply to find out if someone's written about it..." It's really satisfying when you discover that someone had that feeling in 1981 and wrote a really obscure but excellent article on a topic. Getting hard to access sources the exposure they deserve is one of the most satisfying things about editing Wikipedia, I feel. Searching Twitter also can throw up unexpected things and directions for more research, even if what you find isn't itself a reliable source it can be a good direction finder. Blythwood (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

July 26

I have a question about the word cool

Is it weird for me to say the word cool since it's maybe an out of date word and I'm not exactly a teenager since I'm close to 40 years old? 2001:569:5026:8A00:A1DB:EE40:D703:4C06 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My friends who are more than twice your age use it. The cool friends, anyway. But then, they were also groovy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Most people vary the register and vocabulary they use according to where and to whom they're speaking, so they don't make their listeners uncomfortable: I don't natter to some bloke down the pub in the same manner that I converse with my bank manager, for example. So using 'cool' is likely cool with some of your friends who talk in the same manner, but maybe not 'cool' with others, like your granny. Sometimes, however, one might deliberately use a non-appropriate register deliberately as a passing joke or to put your listener off-guard, or on the defensive: it all depends on the circumstances. FWIW, I'm in my mid-60s and readily say 'cool' in the appropriate setting. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright license for images uploaded to Wikipedia

I recall that there was a place to deposit licenses granted by copyright owners granting permission to upload things to Wikipedia. Where do I find it? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)