Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:09, 27 August 2023

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

August 20

The Black Cauldron (1985)

Please, can you search if the production had modelled the face of the evil king from a real-life character? And maybe also the Horned King's castle? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.238.201 (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at Lewis Chessmen. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a stylized face. Nobody actually looks (or looked) like that. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be sure? Were you there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of my dad on a good day. The insane red-eyed rage is missing. Compare my mum below. MinorProphet (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is overthrowing the US government a civil offense or a criminal one?

[1] Not seeking legal advice since I'm sure Trump already has plenty. This thing about the 14th amdt preventing would-be overthrowers from holding office again puzzles me though. It was written to handle the then-still-around leaders of the Confederacy which gave a literal civil war, right?

Anyway, if they try to use that clause to stop Trump from being re-inaugurated, there will surely be a court case about whether he really tried to overthrow the government. So I'm wondering whether it would be a civil case (decided on preponderance of evidence standard) or a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt). There was a similar thing with OJ Simpson where he was acquitted of murder but still held civilly liable for wrongful death, because the evidence against him met one standard (according to the jury) but not the other.

Amusingly, the movie Fahrenheit 911 has a scene that basically criticizes Al Gore for not doing the same thing against George W. Bush after the 2000 election. Bill Clinton at the time said he would have fought it. I wonder if there could have been a 14th amdt case after that. Anyway, thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:F22A (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added: apparently Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison for sedition, and got 3.4 percent of the vote. I don't know if sedition counts as insurrection under the vague notions of that Atlantic article. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:F22A (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on US law by any stretch of the imagination, but feel like most governments will make "trying to overthrow us" a criminal offence, rather than just something you pay a fine about. They get to pick, after all. Folly Mox (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:F22A -- If the Federal government accused Trump of trying to overthrow it, then of course that would be a criminal matter, but a lawsuit about whether his name should be on the ballot, or whether he should be allowed to assume office, would be a different matter (the trial would not be directly accusing Trump of a crime, but trying to determine whether his past crimes affect his eligibility for office). AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment spoke to the Civil War situation. In the case of Trump, it would be hard to apply the amendment if he hasn't been convicted of insurrection at the time of the election. Hence his efforts to delay the trials. As to Debs, I don't think he was accused of insurrection, but only of opposing our entry into WWI. Hence the sedition charge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debs was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for fighting against the draft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about criminal vs civil offenses per se. It's about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the so-called Insurrection Clause, which, at the time it was written, disqualified a relatively clear class, namely those who had supported the Confederacy during the Civil War.

There's a huge current debate about this, especially on those sections of the American center-right that would like to see a Republican Party disencumbered of Trump. A description that broadly includes me, for whatever that's worth, not that that matters here.

The legal side of it gets fairly arcane fairly quickly, with different people taking different positions on whether the clause is "self-executing", whatever that means exactly, and who needs to take notice of the fact that someone is disqualified as an insurrectionist. The substantive matter of whether Trump is actually guilty of insurrection is not that clear either, at least to me; while hardly a stable genius, he does seem to have been smart enough to avoid giving unambiguous instructions to use violence to disrupt the vote-counting process.

Anyway, here are some links. You might start with this article by Ross Douthat (note that I've used my subscription to "gift" the article so readers can get past the paywall; we'll see if that works on Wikipedia). That article gives an overview of the debate and gives links to others, which are also worth looking at directly. Douthat is a skeptic of the argument.

On the "pro" side, here's this piece in the Volokh Conspiracy, which claims that the clause is self-enforcing and that any official charged with evaluating eligibility can and should exclude Trump on those grounds, without further action by anyone else. It links to a more general analysis of the clause, here.

The Volokh Conspiracy also published a skeptical counterpoint, here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See here for an article co-authored by J. Michael Luttig, a well-known conservative former judge, summarizing a paper by conservative legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen fvavoring an expansive view of the insurrection disqualification clause... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "self-enforcing" of a clause like this is where the line is drawn with regards to "advocating changing the policy and personnel of the U.S. government" and "advocating insurrection against said government". I'm in no way defending anything Trump did here, except to note that lots of governments call political disagreements "insurrection", and insofar as one is to err on one side or the other of the "disagreement vs. insurrection" line, it's usually better for society that one allows things which are a bit insurrectionist, rather than to quash things that are merely disagreements on how the government should be run. No statement on whether Trump's actions should or should not be considered insurrection, but that's why we have courts. A robust and independent court system and a scrupulous adherence to due process is what determines that. Yes, the constitution invalidates insurrectionists from holding public office, but a court needs to decide where an action is insurrection. --Jayron 32 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially the position taken by Michael McConnell (and also Douthat) in the above links. I tend to agree as well, for whatever it's worth, not that that matters.

It does seem a pity that the amendment's drafters weren't a little more clear about how the disqualification was to work in practice. Or they could have just dropped it; the impulse behind it was understandable enough, but

It disqualifies an odd class, not insurrectionists in general, but only those who have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution. I mean, sure, that seems worse than if you haven't, but what's the political theory behind that?
It didn't seem to accomplish much in practice.
It's not really germane to the rest of the amendment, which is already one of the more complicated bits of the Constitution.

The 14th amendment is pretty interesting. This is a corner of it I had forgotten existed, before the aftermath of Jan 6. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was a compromise, instead of charging the entire Confederacy with treason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the emphasis on oath-breaking is that it indicates untrustworthiness. Its the difference between a former enemy who is no longer an enemy (and might become a friend) vs. someone you thought was a friend and turned on you. Iapetus (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

When did naval surgeons become doctors?

There is an assumption in the question, namely that if I walk aboard a battleship or aircraft carrier in 2023, the ship's doctor(s) will be an actual, university-educated doctor. This was not always the case: in the early 19th century, a ship's surgeon had generally learned their trade by apprenticeship and the entire Royal Navy (for example) had only a few dozen university-educated physicians in the fleet. When did this change? Dr-ziego (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the case for surgeons generally, not just naval surgeons. According to Surgeon#History, "In Europe, surgery was mostly associated with barber-surgeons who also used their hair-cutting tools to undertake surgical procedures, often at the battlefield and also for their employers. With advances in medicine and physiology, the professions of barbers and surgeons diverged; by the 19th century barber-surgeons had virtually disappeared, and surgeons were almost invariably qualified doctors who had specialized in surgery". I can't see any specific dates though, either there or in History_of_surgery. Nor can I see anything to indicate whether naval surgery was ahead or behind other surgery in that matter. Iapetus (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are explicit dates to be found in College of Surgeons of England (1800 for a specific Royal Charter). The resulting social pressure must have had its influence, if you consider the case of William Beatty although he was a warranted surgeon without a medical degree at the time of the Battle of Trafalgar (1805) he was a physician with the necessary academic recognition very soon after. Interestingly, "in 1807, number of other naval surgeons and he were active in promoting the new practice of vaccination against smallpox". --Askedonty (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr-ziego -- It doesn't have anything to do with Britain or naval matters specifically, but you can look at "The Splendid Century" by W.H. Lewis (the brother of C.S. Lewis) for a rather vivid and disheartening sketch of the state of the French medical professions ca. 1700. The academic doctors were basically stuck in the Middle Ages, and almost impervious to evidence or empirical facts which were not found in ancient classical authors. They considered any form of cutting into a patient's body to be lowly tradesman's work, and completely inappropriate to their lofty social status as academicians. There were several categories of surgeons to do such work (some more educated/qualified than others), but the academic doctors did their best to make sure that no surgeons were allowed to approach their own status and privileges. I don't think that the situation in Britain was quite as calcified as in France, but Britain was influenced by some of the same traditions... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the OP's premise is entirely correct. This review of Health and Medicine at Sea, 1700–1900, says:

Chapter two (M. John Cardwell, ‘Royal Navy Surgeons, 1793-1815: A Collective Biography’) focuses on naval surgeons by recording their backgrounds... As for their education, in the late 18th and into the early 19th century, many surgeons had practical training at medical schools. Records show that many medical officers attended such schools in London, Edinburgh and Dublin, as well as passing at the Royal College of Surgeons, before they joined the service. Even though records are scarce, the author reveals that many naval surgeons had some civilian medical practice.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1860s, such earlier apprenticed surgeons were "old salt" (Gangrene and Glory: "rough and ready medical sailor", in the U.S. so it seems people were made surgeons like so up until the 1820s or the 1830s) - perhaps less sophisticated in a way than a barber would have been. But an other interesting info from Gangrene and Glory is that the Union and the Confederacy both hierarchically had a fleet surgeon; by contrast where there was a medical director on field. --Askedonty (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a Surgeon general seems tangentially related to the discussion as well. --Jayron 32 12:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the person who cuts the umbilical cord? Sorry, I'll see myself out. --Jayron 32 15:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of regulation for civilian and military physicians was the Apothecaries Act 1815 (apothecaries at that time fulfilled the role of a general practitioner), which according to this article, was born out of the deficiencies of military medical services during the Napoleonic wars. Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks market question.

Do stocks go up when company makes money, or when they announce their quarterly earnings, and the people see the outcome is positive? If the answer is the 2nd, that seems to imply a little magic in it, which I would be inclined to deny. Heh. Thanks. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Stocks go up when more people buy them than sell them. Good news certainly helps. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For any trade to take place, somebody has to buy, and somebody has to sell. --Amble (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks can easily go down when a company makes money. If a company expects to earn $1,000,000 in a year and actually earns $1,000, the severe shortfall in earnings is likely to worry its investors, and worried investors are typically willing to sell at lower prices. At the same time, stocks can go up when money is lost, e.g. when it expects to lose $1,000,000 and actually loses just $1,000. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, investors sell to their broker, who then combines parcels of shares as necessary to fulfil buy orders. Large orders in illiquid companies may be filled by "borrowing" shares - large investors can make money by loaning out some of their holding in return for commission. I once bought one five-hundredth of the issued capital of the company I worked for. They were taken over and the price quadrupled. Asked by another staff member what shareholders should do the managing director said "Sell." I didn't take the advice (this was at the height of the tech boom - before the buyer would complete he came in on bank holiday Monday 3 January to see whether the millennium bug had disabled the computer systems). He closed down the ballot counting arm to customer protests, leaving the only other company in the field with a monopoly, and the share price tanked. It revived after the company was itself taken over, and the new owners bought out the minority shareholders. To cut costs the office downsized to different premises. After the old building closed the managing director entered on his own, only to get stuck in the lift - luckily he had his mobile phone with him. The set-up in the new building was possibly unique - you could go up in the service lift from the street but you couldn't go down again so if the exit gate was locked you were trapped (that happened to one courier). 2A00:23D0:CDF:7701:A5E6:C3CC:1CCB:680F (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comparison in a very old stock trading book in our collection that compares stocks to baseball cards. If people want a baseball card, it is worth more. If they don't want it, it is worth less. It is not directly based on the player's statistics. It is based solely on consumer interest. Stocks are the same. If people want a stock, it is worth more. If people don't want it, it is worth less. It is not directly based on the company's statistics. I don't think it is from Reminicinces of a Stock Operator. I scanned it already. If there is interest, I will see if I can find the correct book. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But stocks don't know if there is a strong interest in them or not. Only if people buy/sell them or not. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Stocks don't know anything. They are abstract concepts, not sentient beings. --Jayron 32 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball cards don't know anything either. That is why it is a comparison, two things that have value based on interest of buyers, which can go up and down for reasons that little to do with the thing in question. Perhaps you are claiming that the price of stocks is not based on interest in them. That would be incorrect. If people are buying a particular stock, the price will go up based on increased interest in the stock. If people lose interst and begin selling the stock, the price will go down. Per the example, if there are 100 of a particular baseball card and people are interested in purchasing it, the price will go up. If, instead, people who have it are trying to sell it, price will go down. The difference is that the valuable baseball cards have a small quantity and sell rather infrequently while stocks have large quantities and sell multiple times a day. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But what I've never seen happen, is a stock staying stationary for a short period of time, even a few seconds. It's always either moving up or down. Surely there should be a period where nobody is buying and selling? Therefore the curve should remain a horizontal line? 170.76.231.162 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The key part of your statement is "I've never seen." Look at volume. Most stocks have a volume indication that shows how many buys and sells take place every second. It continues into aftermarket trading. There are stocks that are not popular. They are neither bought or sold. Consider stock symbol BIO.B. It is rarely traded and the stock value remains flat. Also keep in mind that just like everything else, value can change with a change in the value of the dollar. A dollar does not have constant value. It goes down over time. It can go up, but it doesn't. There is always some measure of inflation that decreases the value of the dollar. So, if we assume that a stock's true value remains constant, that value measured in dollars will require more dollars over time. Back to baseball cards, a card that was valued at $100 in 1980 should be worth well over $300 today even if the value of the card itself hasn't changed. It is because the value of the dollar changed. All of this is a time frame issue. The stock market works in microseconds. If a stock stays the same price for 20 microseconds, you wouldn't notice. The time frame is too quick. But, if the stock market worked in days, such that everyone could buy/sell one time per day, you would see the same price for 20 days, not 20 microseconds. I want to point out that a coworker angrily argued that the stock market does not check prices every microsecond. I directed her to look at interviews with the founders of Automated Trading Desk. They trained their stock trading AI to trade day to day, then changed the time frame to hourly, then every minute, then every second, and then into microseconds. It makes the same profit per trade regardless, but it makes more trades when running much faster. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composers, novelists, and painters.

You got famous composers like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. You got famous novelists like Dickens and Shakespeare. You got famous painters like Van Gogh and Monet. Has anyone done 2 out of 3? I think to the extent the answer is, they are not that famous. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Are you asking if someone has been famous for music, writing, and visual arts? It's going to be tough to define because, once you're famous in one realm, part of your fame in the second realm will feed off of the first. It's like how many entertainers are listed in Wikipedia as model/actor/writer/etc.: they became an actor after being famous as a model and then wrote a book about it. Or a song about it. Or produced a play about it. You get the idea. Polymath may be of interest to you. Matt Deres (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Shakespeare was not any sort of novelist, famous or otherwise. Thus Dickens is in a group of one, and you also only mention 2 painters. If your question concerns 2 out of 3, the only group of three you mention are composers. I would say that they are all equally famous, although I could mention Wagner and Vivaldi (and why not Pachelbel, famous for one single, mind-blowingly boring work?) MinorProphet (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you need to be gifted a copy of Pachelbel's Greatest Hit, which has 8 different renditions of the Canon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right the number of examples is not relevant. Just wondering who is famous and has done at least 2 of the 3. Novelists/poets/playwriters as 1 category sure. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

William Blake, poet and painter. Or only counting novels for literary fame? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How famous is famous? Mervyn Peake was probably better known as an artist than a writer for much of his life, but now he is much better known as a writer. Thomas Hardy was better known as a poet until quite late in his life, but his novels are far better known today. ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lindsay is a famous name Down Under (his entire family was extraordinarily creative). He was both an artist and a novelist, some of whose written works have been made into movies (Helen Mirren had her first credited role in Age of Consent, 1969). In later life, he said that, while he was generally regarded by the public as a painter who also wrote, he considered himself a writer who also painted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One solid measurement of a humanities person's accomplishments is a Nobel Prize in literature. List of Nobel laureates tells us that two Nobel laureates have won two prizes in different fields, but both were scientific (Marie Curie in physics and chemistry, and Linus Pauling in chemistry and peace), and none of the literature laureates has won a second prize in literature or any other field. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is scientific? --Trovatore (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Only one laureate (Literature) has played first-class cricket. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least one physics laureate was also a professional footballer, Niels Bohr, who played goalkeeper for Akademisk Boldklub. --Jayron 32 12:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't play professionally, as professionalism was introduced in Denmark only in 1978. Still top-level, and his brother even made it on the national team. --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Burgess, novelist and composer. Edmund Crispin wrote film scores as Bruce Montgomery. Charles Dibdin, composer, musician, dramatist, novelist, singer and actor. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's William Shakespeare. In his lifetime his fame, such as it was, came entirely from his acting and theatre management. After his death, a bunch of the plays his troupe performed became attributed to his own pen, but not without considerable later controversy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Shakespeare was already considered the leading English playwright by 1598. John M Baker (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schoenberg. Jean Cocteau. Lou Harrison. --Viennese Waltz 07:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among the German Romantics, E. T. A. Hoffmann – mostly now remembered as a writer, but also did painting and composition, so ticks all three boxes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Mitchell is a composer and painter; she has painted pretty much all of her own album covers. --Jayron 32 11:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cave of The Bad Seeds is a composer and novelist (and screenwriter, and actor, and has studied Art). I have read his And the Ass Saw the Angel, which I found accomplished, horrifying and funny.

Graham Parker of The Rumour, a prolific songwriter, has published a novel and some shorter fiction.

Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden and as a soloist has composed album and soundtrack music and has written two humorous novels, The Adventures of Lord Iffy Boatrace (which I've read) and its sequel. He is also a former international-level fencer, a qualified airline pilot, and a documentary presenter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And with all that he's still not the Bruce Dickinson. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bowles, novelist and classical composer. Jim Carroll, writer and leader of a rock band; there are actually quite a few of those, including Hitonari Tsuji. Rarer is Henri Michaux, poet and visual artist. For bonus points, Tsuji and the aforementioned Jean Cocteau are also respected film directors. Can't think of anyone combining all three talents (writing, musical composition and visual arts) at a high level, however. Xuxl (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'S. P. Somtow', also well known by his real name Somtow P. Sucharitkul, is a prolific Thai Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror writer, who is also an artist, screenwriter & director, musician, classical composer and conductor, orchestra director, opera writer and director, and via his Diploducus Press publishes reprints and original works by himself and others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chincha Islands War conclusion

I just spent some time reading about the Chincha Islands War, which I'd never heard of before. The article observes that Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia all declared war on Spain, and it discusses the conclusion of hostilities, but nothing is said of the diplomatic end of the war. When were peace treaties signed, or otherwise when was war un-declared? Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armistice 11 April, 1871. Peace treaties: Peru 14 April, 1879. Bolivia 21 August, 1879. Chile 12 June 1883. Ecuador 28 January 1885. Davis, William Columbus (1950). The Last Conquistadores. p. 332., fiveby(zero) 02:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added this information to the article. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Naming taboo in 1620s or c. 1750 England?

Hi! I was cleaning up some ReferenceExpander damage at Lewis Pope and ran into an oddity during verification. The article states Pope was MP for Taunton in the 1620 parliament, sourced to Notitia Parliamentaria (1750). Problem is, there's no mention of any "Lewis Pope" in that volume according to the OCR at gbooks, and no one surnamed Pope listed in the book's index, verified visually. The person listed as MP for Taunton in the parliament claimed is named as "Lewis Hope".

I kept the source and the claim and added a page number and a note to the effect that Pope is called Hope, but did I just make that up? Was there any kind of naming taboo during either the 1620s or c. 1750 in England on the word "Pope"? This is what immediately came to mind due to my experience in Chinese history, but maybe Lewis Pope was just a merchant with the Spanish Company, and Lewis Hope was MP for Taunton.

Advice and regular editorial activity at the linked article welcome. All four sources available in full in English online with no special accounts. Deferring here to anyone with topic area expertise. Folly Mox (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given Alexander Pope it seems unlikely for 1750 (although he was actually a Catholic). Either a typo, or conceivably he did change his name, the way many Germans did in WWI (the Royal Family leading the charge...). Or 2 people. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Pope. This is the source you want for MPs. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And his stepson was "Moore" not "Moone". Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source above is probably the most definitive available here, but I'll just point out that the name is also given as 'Lewis Pope' in Cobbett's Parliamentary History, vol. 1, at 1174. Shells-shells (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I've updated the article with the corrections and improved sources. Not sure why I thought an English parliamentarian from the 1600s would not be independently verifiable by someone like me with no domain knowledge, but thanks for the kind effort to help correct the article, and especially the information about the authority of the first source provided here.

Resolved

Folly Mox (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Committal service for Queen Elizabeth II and Coronation Ceremony

Hi, towards the end of the committal service of Queen Elizabeth, items of regalia were removed from her coffin. One of which was the Imperial State Crown. Why was it not St. Edward's Crown, this is the more senior crown used at the moment of crowning.

Similarly is there a reason why the orb, Sceptre with the Cross and Imperial State Crown are placed on the coffin. Is there an order of precedence in terms of how important certain items of regalia are? I noticed the same with the coronation ceremony that these were the items worn in the outward procession. Would be curious to know why these items specifically when there are others that could be used (St. Edward's staff, the sceptre with the dove, etc.)

Thanks --Andrew 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Imperial State Crown and St. Edward's Crown, St. Edward's Crown is traditionally only used for coronations, and generally not for any other purpose (and even then it has only been used in seven coronations throughout history, so "traditionally" it wasn't even used that much). --Jayron 32 15:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What years are today's 2% inflation?

The U.S. federal reserve keeps talking about their target of 2% inflation. What specific years are the prices supposed to match at, like 2010 or 2005? 170.76.231.162 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Here is some background on the 2% target: [2]. The 2% inflation is "over the current prices", not any specific years in the past. It's a year-on-year target; in other words the target is that 2024 prices are 2% higher than 2023 prices. --Jayron 32 15:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways the Fed (and other economists) measure inflation: from the last month to this month (June to July was +0.2%, on a seasonally adjusted basis), and from the same month last year to the same month this year (year-on-year, e.g., July 2022 to July 2023, +3.2%). The consumer price index (CPI), a common measure, is an index based on price level averages in 1982-84.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badly key-signaturing songs

Look at this URL: https://descubrelamusica.com/the-more-we-get-together

Do you see the key signature they gave the song?? That key signature belongs to the key of D, not G. Do they think the song is in D for any reason?? (Please answer this question with an answer showing that lots of people key-signature songs incorrectly and that the reason can vary.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a premise that is wrong in your question, which is that "key signature" is something that 1) all songs must have and 2) all transcribers must agree on and 3) there can only be 1 correct key signature for a song. A key signature is a notational convention, and is not inherent to the music itself. It exists to make it easier for people playing the music to read and understand the sheet music. While some songs have a very strong pull towards a particular key signature (especially if they keep to a very specific set of notes, usually the notes of a major scale or one of the modes of the major scale), lots of music does not necessarily. Arnold Schoenberg famously composed music which lacked an obvious key, for example, as does other music composed with his Twelve-tone technique. The blues, and music based on the blues (like rock) also tends to have problems being transcribed into a key; the prominent presence of blue notes and things like the blues scale and pentatonic scale make notation on traditional sheet music (and thus, key signatures) difficult without the use of copious accidentals. --Jayron 32 17:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayron32, all songs (including those where there are no sharps or flats) have a key signature. As for #3, I'm aware any key signature is correct for a song depending on how the song is arranged. The 2-sharp key signature is correct for songs in the keys of D major and B minor. (It can be correct for any song if the arrangement for that song is in the key of D major or B minor.) As for #2, which is "all transcribers must agree on", do many arrangers follow their own rules on how to determine when to use a certain key signature?? What are the most common of these rules?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All songs can be assigned a key signature, based on whether or not the transcriber wishes to put on on the staff. It's a notational convention, and not something inherent in the music itself. The "no sharps or flats" is a key signature of course, that's C major. It's not the presence of sharps or flats that determines what makes a good key signature for a song, rather two things go into what key signature will be assigned to a piece of music; 1) music that is strongly diatonic has an obvious key signature, usually, because the 7 notes of the diatonic scale (regardless of mode) owe easily to a key signature. 2) Music that has a strong sense of resolution will have an obvious key signature, even if it uses occasional chromatic tones, or accidentals. For example, many songs which are in the mixolydian mode are often notated as though they were in the parallel major key, since the difference between mixolydian and major is only the flattened 7th; something in the D mixolydian mode (and thus uses all of the notes of the G major scale) could have a "D major" key signature, even though that would require the use of the natural accidental for the C note in D mixolydian (G major key signature would require no accidentals). Also, regarding #2, as I noted above, lots of music is not based on the 7-note diatonic scale of the western classical tradition. I gave you several examples. Key signature makes less and less sense when you're dealing with music that isn't. If you really want to go down a music theory rabbit hole on key ambiguity, spend some time looking at the "What key signature is Sweet Home Alabama in?" debate that was raging through the music theory world in late 2019. It involved the exact same key ambiguity between G and D that you are having above.Here is a synopsis of the debate, and if you want some more perspectives, both Adam Neely [3] and Paul Davids[4] did good deep dives on the subject on their respective youtube channels, and the same debate inspired 12tone to make This video, which I highly recommend you watch. There's also This video from 12tone, which explains the problems with analyzing music with such a strong focus on key signatures, to the detriment of other aspects of music theory. --Jayron 32 17:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did look at your song. I would have probably used the G key signature for that one, because it uses both the notes of the diatonic G major scale AND the song resolves obviously to "G" (the word "be" lands on a half-note G, the only half note in the whole melody). The transcriber has decided to notate it in D mixolydian, because of the use of all the natural accidentals on the C. No idea why. You'd have to ask them. So, yes, to answer your original question that song has an obvious tonic note. It's G. However, that notwithstanding, musical key is not a concept baked into the physics of music, and I stand by my original tangent as valid in general (even if I didn't directly answer your question). --Jayron 32 18:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mistake to me, that's all. Why not ask the arranger on his Facebook page? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Beethoven String Quartet #14

String Quartet No. 14 (Beethoven) was apparently a favorite of J. Robert Oppenheimer. I guess it fits in with Oppenheimer's interest in Hindu mysticism and stuff like that. I've heard it before but am interested in giving it another listen. Are there any particularly notable recordings? Is contemporary performance practice different than it was 60 years ago? I ask that because the Budapest Quartet's 1961 recording is on youtube, so that might be an obvious choice. Hmm, it occurs to me also that the 1961 recording might be closer to what Oppenheimer would have listened to. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably can't go wrong with the Alban Berg Quartett: recording on YouTube. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That following youtube short extract, AFAIK is neither dated nor credited but it has the merit to have been selected as typical - by someone who knows about that question. So with the corresponding sample from the 1961 recording here I'm not convinced that Oppenheimer would have sticked to all of what's in it. Back in the years without a Karajan for coordinating everything neither a leading tenor or soprano a recording session could become rather tricky- this means, at places, a little bit treacherous: you'd have to be ready buying the next other version. Here the Alban Berg Quartett part on the same, and that nice 2013 version is giving and idea to where most of all of the past work was heading to. To which I think yes, Rnd person is correct - in so far that listening is not watching --Askedonty (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Karajan and Leonard Bernstein both made recordings of this work being performed by a full orchestra. I bought the Bernstein record without knowing better, and one of my musician friends was aghast that such a thing even existed (this was many years ago). I'll try the youtube recordings that the two of you have linked. I had no idea that recording a string quartet was particularly difficult, so that was interesting too. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an arrangement for orchestra by Karl Müller-Berghaus has been around for well over a hundred years.[5] So it doesn't seem that exotic. But of course I can see a purist balk at the idea of "messing with the master's work". And I think "aghast" is the perfect word for it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's Grosse Fuge started out its life as the final movement from his previous string quartet. Even before that work was ever published, Beethoven wrote an arrangement of the Grosse Fuge for piano 4-hands, which may have helped him come to the decision to remove it from the quartet and write a different final movement.

Beethoven also arranged a movement from Mozart's Clarinet Quintet for solo piano; one of the preludes and fugues from Bach's The Well-Tempered Clavier, originally for solo keyboard, for string quartet; and various other things. So, really, we have his own imprimatur for reworking his music for different instruments. Mozart and Bach themselves were inveterate arrangers of others' music and publishing them as their own original compositions. So much for purity in music. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, rearranging music for alternate instrumentation is all well and good, but Bernstein's orchestra arrangement of quartet #14 almost turns it into a different piece of music. And this piece has a particular mystique around it whose "defiling" might have also gotten my friend upset. It is also on youtube and I listened to parts of it and to the Alban Berg Quartett version last night.

Bernstein's youtube version has a spoken introduction where Bernstein says it's his favorite of his recordings, and that he considers it to be something like a Tenth Symphony by Beethoven. I'm sure your musical sophistication is much greater than mine so you might want to decide for yourself. Listening to the quartet takes more concentration than I was able to muster last night, though I'll keep trying. It might be easier with ear training that I don't have. Now I also want to re-listen to some Bartok quartets, which I remember as having a similar sense of layering. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International post

From the point of view of a post office, how is international mail handled, when it's not practical to go straight from one country to another? If I send a letter to New Zealand, presumably Australia Post puts it in a carton with other items headed to New Zealand, ships the carton to New Zealand, and gives it to New Zealand Post to handle. However, barring a charter flight, there's no way to go directly from Australia to Paraguay. If I send a parcel there, does Australia Post have to pay some intermediate country (e.g. Chile?) to transfer it, or is it just given to the intermediate country, like mail destined for that country? Or is there some other process I'm not thinking of?

This is the simplest explanation I could think of, but it's maybe not right. Europe is farther than East Africa, but I have to pay more to send a letter to Tanzania than our mother country ($4.30 versus $3.90), presumably because we have more frequent communications there, so it costs Australia Post more to send things to Africa. But on the other hand, we have direct flights Sydney-Santiago, and yet it costs $4.30 to send to Chile, while a letter to Kiribati (with no direct flights that I can find, even to Tarawa) costs just $3.10. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International mail is freight, so how mail gets sent to different countries is a subset of how cargo is shipped to different countries. I'm pretty sure the prices for mailing to different countries are set by each country's government. However, see "terminal dues" under International Postal Union for fees which governments sometimes pay, and might wish to pass along to the mailing public... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may like this rather excited video explaining the charging with a worked example. (Standard disclaimer - no connection - no guarantees.) -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

"Surgery" in England

Touching on the question from a few days ago: given that England traditionally made a strong distinction between surgeons and physicians, and most GPs are the latter, how did a GP's office come to be called a surgery? 71.126.57.241 (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in the early 19th century, the predecessors of general practioners used to call themselves "surgeon-apothecaries", presumably to distinguish themselves from apothecaries who just sold potions. See The rise of the general practitioner in the nineteenth century. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting article in the Midlands Historical Review here about mediaeval divisions between physicians, apothecaries, and surgeons in England. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term to mean a consulting room dates only from 1846, by which time the old distinctions were blurring. Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the majority of people in the U.S. would have no idea what a politician's "surgery" is. (Gabby Giffords was shot at what would be called a "surgery" in the U.K., but not in the U.S.) AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That usage originated as late as 1951 (see my etymonline link above). Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember thinking that it was a horrible invasion of privacy and a major health hazard to let the public into a politician's surgery.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French cities without synagogues or mosques

What is the largest French city (by population) without a synagogue? After a quick research it seems that Tourcoing, Roubaix, Saint-Pierre, Réunion, Le Tampon, Cherbourg-en-Cotentin, Bourg-en-Bresse, Saint-Brieuc, and ~~Mâcon~~ (among others) don't have one despite their large populations. The whole departments of Manche, Ain and Côtes-d'Armor don't seem to have one either. Same for the whole regions of Mayotte and Guyane. And what about mosques? Buddhist temples? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mâcon has a synagogue. With a population of 34,000 the town is barely considered as heavily populated although scoring sixth in importance in the French wine region Franche-Comté. --Askedonty (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roubaix had a synagogue until 1940. The town was in the path of the German Blitzkrieg. The Jewish community is now served by a synagogue in nearby Lille (about 14 km away). [6] Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally a city should have three synagogues — the one you go to, the one you don't go to, and the one you wouldn't be seen dead in. {The poster formerly known as 87,.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Stamford Hill, that would be the Reform Synagogue (now a school), the United Synagogue (the one in Northwold Road is now a theatre, I don't know about the one in Walford Road (of EastEnders fame)) or the one everyone is seen in, the Orthodox Synagogue (located in practically every other house). 2A00:23C3:FB81:A501:BCBF:4D79:2265:6609 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Insights on Digitalization's Impact on Income-tax Base

Hello, I'm eager to gain insights into the topic of the role of digitalization in widening the income-tax base. Could you kindly share your perspectives on how digitalization has contributed to expanding the scope of taxable activities and increasing tax revenue? Your expert insights would greatly enrich my understanding. Thank you. Grotesquetruth (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look as if any regular respondants at this Desk can answer your query. Bear in mind that most Wikipedia editors, who are all volunteers, are not necessarily experts in any topic, and the field of this enquiry is very specialised so no experts in it are likely to be active on this Refdesk.

Possibly the article Digital transformation might provide ideas and links that you can follow up – one potentially useful link in its 'See also' section is Government Digital Service. Hope this helps, or at least stimulates other Refdeskers to tell us both why I'm wrong. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

What's the root of the "Believe"/"#Believe"'s association with the town of Wigan?

Believe Square,
Believe talent fund (https://www.wigan.gov.uk/BeWell/Support-for-athletes/Believe-Talent-Fund.aspx),
"Believe I'm only human" (https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Council/Believe/index.aspx)
Believe Bus (https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/football/wigan-athletic-the-12th-man-lets-keep-the-pedal-to-the-floor-and-see-how-far-a-fully-gassed-believe-bus-can-take-us-4270010)

https://wiganathletic.com/news/2023/april/06/proud-to-believe-2023-24-wigan-athletic-season-tickets-launched-on-tuesday-11-april/ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-32931942 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/wigan-pride-2023-parade-times-27473623https://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/23533418.keely-hodgkinson-honoured-believe-star-leigh-town-hall/ -Bogger (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the links "Believe Square is a walk of fame established by Wigan Council to honour the achievements of Leigh's citizens." I've also solved the puzzle of "Wigan Pier" which perplexed me up to now. 2A00:23C3:FB81:A501:BCBF:4D79:2265:6609 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but why's it called Believe Square..? -Bogger (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Believe in Wigan' was a thing during the 2012-13 FA Cup, which Wigan won.[7] I don't know if that's where it originated, but it's probably had an oversized influence since then. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to this 2014 video, Believe Square is all about the FA Cup. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "the puzzle of 'Wigan Pier'" is, but there is an article on it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old local joke, made famous by George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) though the fame is evidently wearing off by now. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Rommel

Had Rommel personally met Stauffenberg during the African campaign or in other circumstances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.202.59 (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There can be found a narrative according which such a meeting would have happened in Tunisia in 1943. Unless something more precise comes to be unveiled, it's an extrapolation after the tactical meeting of February 13, 1943 between the 5th armoured panzer commander Heinz Ziegler, general von Arnim, general Erwin Rommel, brigadier general Hans Seidemann, and the commanders of the 10th and 21th div panzer, brigade general von Broich and colonel Hans-Georg Hildebrandt, as von Stauffenberg was by then Oberstleutnant i.G. (lieutenant-colonel of the general staff), 10th panzer division. --Askedonty (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rolfe

Until his death, Pocahontas' son was a loyal servant of the crown or a supporter of the revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.202.59 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can say that Thomas Rolfe (1615–1680) died well before the American Revolution; however, the Timeline of the American Revolution begins with the Cambridge Agreement (August 29, 1629). He didn't seem to be politically motivated either way; there seems to be no evidence suggesting that he was involved in any revolutionary activities or that he was a loyal to the Crown. He lived as an Englishman and was mainly concerned with managing his land and with relations between colonists and natives. His political views may have been influenced by his English father, John Rolfe, who returned to Virginia, remarried and served a prominent role in the economic and political life of the colony until his death in 1622^[8] serving as secretary and recorder general of Virginia (1614-1619) and as a member of the governor's Council (1614-1622). But, even that doesn't establish a clear distinction between either John's or Thomas' loyalty to the Crown or to a (future) revolution of independence. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC) (with a little help from my friend, Perplexity AI copilot)[reply]

I meant the English Revolution who overtrow the Stuart.

The Glorious Revolution started in 1688, well after Rolfe's death. Furthermore, it only really started bubbling after Catholic James II ascended the throne in 1685. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP is thinking of the English Civil War, which was fundamentally a revolution and did, for a time, remove the Stuarts from England. Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the one who killed Charles I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.98.108 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Clément, Jean Châtel, and François Ravaillac

For their birth dates (in 1567, 1575, and 1578), are there also the months and days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.202.59 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 219: / Line 219: @@
 Hello, I'm eager to gain insights into the topic of the role of digitalization in widening the income-tax base. Could you kindly share your perspectives on how digitalization has contributed to expanding the scope of taxable activities and increasing tax revenue? Your expert insights would greatly enrich my understanding. Thank you. [[User:Grotesquetruth|Grotesquetruth]] ([[User talk:Grotesquetruth|talk]]) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
+:It doesn't look as if any regular respondants at this Desk can answer your query. Bear in mind that most Wikipedia editors, who are all volunteers, are not necessarily experts in any topic, and the field of this enquiry is very specialised so no experts in it are likely to be active on this Refdesk.
+:Possibly the article [[Digital transformation]] might provide ideas and links that you can follow up – one potentially useful link in its 'See also' section is [[Government Digital Service]]. Hope this helps, or at least stimulates other Refdeskers to tell us both why I'm wrong. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/51.198.140.169|51.198.140.169]] ([[User talk:51.198.140.169|talk]]) 22:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 = August 27 =