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

March 15

Question about Romani people

Moved from User talk:Isabelle Belato

Hello. Can I please obtain information about the following aspects: - reason why the initial term Roma, used to describe this ethnic group was replaced in this article with the term Romani - what was the methodology and criteria used to undergo such important change and when this process happened: - who from the Roma community were actually consulted on this matter and how public and transparent the process was in this regard. Thank you! --dandoghi (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this doesn’t really seem a question for a reference, but is about how Wikipedia works, so the Wikipedia:Help_desk might be where you really need to ask. But I know it’s frustrating to be sent one place after another, so here are some links; perhaps you can look them over and then approach the Help Desk. I think the policy you are asking about may be at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. It means that Wikipedia uses the term used in mainstream newspapers and books. The reasons for why are in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_extended_FAQ. The discussion that led to those decisions is harder to find, but you could start by putting your search terms in the “search archives” box at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Wikipedia policies are a labyrinth! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Which article is referred to in the question by "this article"?  --Lambiam 23:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly Romani people, an article that was moved from Roma people on 25 Apr 2007 and User:Dandoghi would like to shift it back ([1]). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A specific issue with the term Roma is that it has two different senses. In a broad sense, it is synonymous with Romani. In another, narrow but fairly common sense, it is restricted to Romani groups in Eastern Europe. In the common collocation "Sinti and Roma",^[2] it has the narrow sense. The Sinti are a Romani people, but they do not refer to themselves as a group, or to the wider group, as R(r)om(a). A discussion can be found in the book We are the Romani People.^[3]  --Lambiam 10:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

March 16

Which Bible version in Latin?

It is widely documented that the motto of the Order of Canada, desiderantes meliorem patriam, is from the Bible verse Hebrews 11:16 and means "they desire a better country". The English text can easily be confirmed, for example, here: the wording is from the King James Version and others.

But it looks to me as though desiderantes should mean "desiring", not "they desire", so I decided I wanted to see the context in Latin. Searches for online Bible editions in Latin led me to the Vulgate, but there the passage reads simply meliorem appetunt: "they hunger for a better one", referring to the word patriam two verses back to tell you what sort of better thing. See here, for example.

I don't imagine that anyone in the Government of Canada was making up Latin quotations from the Bible, so which Latin edition of the Book of Hebrews did they find this passage in? And what does the whole verse say in Latin? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Also in the original Greek, the verb form, ὀρέγονται, is finite (third-person plural middle/passive indicative present tense). Perhaps the "widely documented" claim is incorrect. The motto may have been "inspired" by the Bible verse, but in the epistle, the better country being desired is heavenly, not a profane "improved" Canada. The website of the Government of Canada does not mention a Biblical provenance.^[4]

• Well, it did when Wikipedia cited it here: Look! Sorry, I thought that was definitive. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It still does, and says that "The English translation of the Latin text" is taken from the bible. So that sounds like somebody (John Ross Matheson?) took words from an English bible and translated them to Latin (however badly).  Card Zero  (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been remarked elsewhere, but the motto invites an interpretation as referring to people who seek to emigrate because their current country sucks.  --Lambiam 01:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bill Casselman said it was wrong, but no one listened and they put it on the Arms of Canada in 1994.

They desire a better country is best put into poetic Latin this way: patriam volunt meliorem. Disiderantes is not the third person plural, present indicative of the first conjugation Latin verb, desiderare. It is the nominative plural of the present participle used as an agent noun, and can thus be accurately translated "those ardently wishing for death." Desiderare in Latin does not suggest a mere polite desire for something. The semantic force of this verb is an urgent yearning, a desiderative impulse far stronger than the pipsqueak English verb "desire." In fact, the Latin verb is misused here. The full meaning of desiderare is to long or pine for something once possessed but now lost. Surely that is not what the originators of the Order of Canada or the nincompoop heralds who added this foolish tag to our coat of arms had in mind?

Casselman, Bill (December 16, 1995). "Life is hard and then you go to heaven". The Globe and Mail.

Apparently John Ross Matheson proposed the translation. McCreery, Christopher (2005). The Order of Canada. p. 185.

Matheson says derives from. Matheson, John Ross (1986). Canada's flag. p. 206 fn. 10.

• So in short, someone in the Government of Canada was making up Latin quotations from the Bible. Huh, I did not imagine that. Thanks! --184.144.97.125 (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

• • Not so fast. The original text comes down to us in Koine Greek, so a translation to English based on an intermediate translation into Latin must be regarded as much less accurate than a direct translation by modern scholars working with the earliest Koine Greek manuscripts. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I get the impression that it was actually a Canadian Judge working with some descendent of the King James Version, but I still don't see how that's "making up Latin quotations". It's just translating. Or maybe that's the same thing?  Card Zero  (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Latin in the Vulgate is a fairly literal translation of the sentence in Koine Greek and remained unchanged when the Vulgata Clementina was revised and replaced by the Nova Vulgata. The Canadian motto only evokes a faint semantic reminiscence of the original sentence while bearing no grammatical resemblance to it, whether in Latin or in Greek.  --Lambiam 08:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the damage was done way back in 1611, so this is not an opportunity to blame Canada.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the minutes do not reference the English, Latin or Greek bible at all. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we know who originally contributed the Latin motto? Was it Matheson? Matheson refers to Heb. 11:16. Did he make this up, or was he told it was the provenance? It is worth pointing out that Matheson translates the motto as a noun phrase, "desirers of a better country".^[5]  --Lambiam 09:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the online trail ends with McCreery and a visit to the archives at Queen's University at Kingston (fn. 12 to "He immediately proposed the Latin translation...") or asking the author for clarification are the next steps for the mistrustful and motivated. I'm only mistrustful. fiveby(zero) 12:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Or, i guess the more diligent would find: Together, quickly pooling our memories of boarding school Latin classes, we decided that the Latin words would be "desiderantes meliorem patriam." Later checking confirmed that we were right. O'Driscoll, Herbert (2021). I Will Arise and Go Now. fiveby(zero) 13:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My conclusion: (1) to call the motto a translation of a phrase from Hebrews 11:16 is historically wrong, while "phrase taken from" is strongly misleading – the relation to Hebrews 11:16 is that the motto is "inspired by" or "derived from" it; (2) the motto is, and was meant to be, a noun phrase, so it should not be translated as a sentence.  --Lambiam 16:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If this Latin phrase meaning "those who pine for a better country" was meant to be a translation of the KJV's "they desire a better country", it is a mistranslation (as pointed out by Casselman). A more literal translation of the Vulgate into English is "they desire a better one". But, in a context in which it has just been stated that "they ... declare plainly that they seek a country", I feel that "they desire a better country" is a fair translation – no damage done.  --Lambiam 09:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• So I repeat, the answer is that someone in the Government of Canada was making up Latin quotations from the Bible. (The issue is whether the Latin motto was in fact found in the Bible, not whether the translations involving Greek or English are correct.) By the way, I'm sure the reason for using Latin was that it isn't English or French. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you insist. I don't see anyone (in or out of the Government of Canada) claiming that the Latin is a quote, though. Much depends on what you think "taken from" means, and whether it refers to the Latin or the English version.  Card Zero  (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I insist -- qed! Seriously, on the old version of the government web site that I cited above, the words "the motto of the Order of Canada, DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM (They desire a better country) – (the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 11 verse 16)" clearly imply that the Latin version is from Hebrews. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Family dictatorship

I wonder if anyone here has an answer to the {{why}} tag in the lede of family dictatorship. How is a "family dictatorship" any different from an absolute monarchy? Is there really much of a difference in practice between say North Korea and Saudi Arabia, in terms of who runs the country? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

At least nominally, North Korea is not a monarchy but a republic. While the line of succession of the position of Supreme Leader has been patrilineal, there is (afaik) no enshrined rule determining the successor. It seems that the current leader and his Respected First Lady have not yet produced progeny. Could the baton be passed on to his sister?  --Lambiam 10:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I remember a master thesis which discussed European monarchies and stipulated that the main distinction between monarchies and non-monarchies tends to be the title. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

To state that the Swiss Confederation is a monarchy but in name is a bit of a stretch.  --Lambiam 16:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the point was the opposite: European monarchies are (today) constitutional monarchies with no real power in the monarch so politically they are little different from non-monarchies. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Name of the thread of life

...in Greek mythology. Moirai has the names of the deities that spin (Clotho), measure (Lachesis) and cut (Atropos) the thread of life but not the actual name of the thread. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

wikt:μίτος (mitos) has "thread of destiny" among its definitions.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Who else suddenly remembered User:Medeis? —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard to believe Medeis has been gone for about 4 years already. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An excellent, highly educated editor who is truly missed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Conventions for recording time in transitioning from Daylight Saving Time to Standard Time

Re: United States.

Changing back and forth from Daylight Saving Time to Standard Time results in two oddities: one day of the year is reduced to being only 23 hours long; one day of the year is extended to being 25 hours long.

In spring, clocks spring forward from 1:59 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. So, the time designations of 2:00 a.m., 2:01 a.m., 2:02 a.m., etc. – all the way through to 2:59 a.m. – do not even occur. These time designations do not officially “exist” at all. (On this one particular day.)

Conversely, in fall, clocks fall back from 1:59 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Thus, the time designations of 1:00 a.m., 1:01 a.m., 1:02 a.m., etc. – all the way through to 1:59 a.m. – will actually occur twice in succession. In other words, we observe the time designations of 1:00 a.m., 1:01 a.m., 1:02 a.m., etc. – all the way through to 1:59 a.m. – (the first time around) … and then we immediately observe them all over again (the second time around). (On this one particular day.)

In the US, the official change of time from Daylight Saving Time to Standard Time – and vice versa – occurs at 2:00 AM … in the dead middle of the night. On a Sunday, no less. Presumably, this is to minimize disruption to our daily lives, as most people are dead asleep at 2:00 AM.

So far, so good. We all go to sleep that night … not particularly concerned about the next 7 or 8 intervening late night/early morning hours …and we awake the next morning. So, in effect, (hypothetically, “on paper”) we have either lost or gained an extra hour of sleep, before we wake up. And it’s not a big deal.

However, I imagine that there are some circumstances and scenarios (i.e., some environments) in which those specific late night/early morning hours are indeed significant and important.

Just off the top of my head … hospitals with their medical scheduling and administration of medications, etc., … busses, trains, and airplanes in travel … computer programs … people working at NASA on space flights, etc., etc., etc. That sort of thing.

So, my question is this.

In the fall change-over: When we repeat those 60 minute time designations from 1:00 a.m., 1:01 a.m., 1:02 a.m., etc. – all the way through to 1:59 a.m. – is there some official or standard way of recording these times? Like, for example, the time would be recorded as: 1:57 A … 1:58 A … 1:59 A … 1:00 B …1:01 B … 1:02 B … and so forth? How is this generally handled in those specific cases where it actually matters?

I have always wondered about this. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

One way would be (using the Pacific Time Zone as an example) to record that something happened on 6 November 2022 at 1:30 AM PDT; then, an hour later, something else happened at 1:30 AM PST. There's a risk of confusion because of the common mistake of writing PST to mean Pacific Time even in summer, but if everyone avoids this error, these times are unambiguous. --Trovatore (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

To answer the NASA-specific part of the question, they use Universal time. See for example the timestamps on Fireball and Bolide Data. Joseph were you inspired by today's xkcd (Consensus time)? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Joseph_A._Spadaro -- The most general way of indicating this is with UTC time offsets -- the daylight savings time offset for a time zone would be one hour off from the standard time offset for that zone... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, we would specify GMT for Greenwich Mean Time or BST for British Summer Time if there was any chance of confusion. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of us with military connections may also invoke "Zulu Time". I did so myself two days ago in a conversation regarding another's appointment with a quasi-military establishment on the morning after the UK's clocks go forward to BST. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

March 17

Where is "Nosonovskij Pesok"?

The information for the top picture on Nenets_people states that it was taken in Nosonovskij Pesok in Russia. Does anyone know or can work out where this is? All searches on Wikipedia and Google either come up with nothing, or assorted references to people named Nosonovskij, or to other copies of that photo that don't contain any more details. Iapetus (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The name appears in Nansen's book Gjennom Sibir (snippet view), also ""Nosonovskij Ostrov" (Остров = "island"), but I couldn't make much sense of it. A possibility is Nosok Island, north of Sibiryakov Island, which appears to be on or near the route of Nansen's Fram expedition in 1893-1896. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a whole chapter in "Through Siberia", the photo in question appears opposite page 88. I haven't found "Nosonovski(j)" in the text, either, the location seems to be near the mouth of the Yenisei River. песок may mean "sand". --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The islands are known collectively by the name of Brekhovskie Ostrova. Our destination was the most north-easterly of these islands, Nosónovski Ostrov (i.e. Nose Island), which, by the way, is divided into two islands by a strait.p.80

At last we turned the point of the southern Nosónovski Island and approached the lighters, which lay at anchor there to the south of the shore, off Nosónovski Pesók (i.e. sand), where there were some houses and tents on land.p. 82

Wikidata: Brekhovskie Islands. Apparently we lack an English language article, but see ru:Бреховские острова. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And as far as my limited knowledge of cyrillic letters allows me to tell this is Nasonovskij. There's also a map in the book (opposite p.16) that shows it.--Wrongfilter (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Nasonovskij. Not quite the same as Nosonovskij, but probably the same place nonetheless. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See Akanye or Vowel reduction in Russian for why one shouldn't worry too much about the disctinction between a and o in Russian. --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true for spoken Russian, but the distinction is still made in writing. Otherwise we'd be reading спасиба instead of спасибо (both pr. spaseeba), Чехав instead of Чехов (both pr. Chehav), and Масква instead of Мoсква (both pr. Maskva). But we don't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, you're right. Now go complain to OSM that they got it wrong. And leave me alone. --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If that's how you want to carry on, I'll gladly have nothing to do with you ever again. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Good detective-work. Iapetus (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added a section to our Yenisey article, with a redirect from Brekhovskie Islands and included a very brief mention of Nosonovskij Ostrov, so it should appear in future searches. I have also expanded the text of the image at Nenets people. Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Independent reporting of Kyiv meeting?

It's widely reported[7] that the prime ministers of PL, CZ, and SI travelled to Kyiv to meet with UA president Zelinskyy. Sources for all the reporting that I've noticed so far seems to be agencies of the mentioned governments. Is it conventional for independent news media to be present at these kinds of events? Is there any non-government primary (eyewitness) reporting, even at the level of "here is a posed photo of those 4 guys, taken in Kyiv by Reuters photographer so-and-so", documenting that this meeting happened as described? Reason for asking: John Helmer (journalist) has published a blog post claiming that the Kyiv meeting was faked (i.e. there was a real meeting, but it was in Poland, those VIP's weren't really dumb enough to risk their butts on a train trip to UA) and the pics were photoshopped to look like Kyiv. I'm wondering whether to take that seriously at all. Helmer is sort of like Craig Murray from what I can tell: not a fruitcake, but gets ahead of himself sometimes. I added a link to his biography but don't want to trigger the RS police by posting it here. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The event was sufficiently unique that one cannot determine what is "conventional" at these kinds of events.  --Lambiam 10:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if BBC or Reuters count as independent, but here's a news with two pictures attributed to PL prime minister's Twitter account and one to Reuters agency: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60757157
Same images posted by Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/polish-czech-and-slovenian-leaders-show-support-to-ukraine-during-kyiv-trip/a-61129235
and by CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europe/european-prime-ministers-kyiv-intl/index.html
Honestly, I doubt any independent press would be invited into such meeting during war. That would put some crucial safe places utilized by Ukrainian authorities at risk of exposure...--CiaPan (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

These images are attributed to the twitter account of Mateusz Morawiecki – not an independent source.  --Lambiam 11:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I said it myself (as well as about the Reuters' one), but apparently I must have been wrong... --CiaPan (talk)

One of Helmer's arguments is that a photograph meant to record arrival at Kyiv railway station is fake, because it is actually the Przemyśl train station. The images in his blog posting are of subpar quality and without an explicit source, but a good image can be seen here. What I seem unable to find is an official statement claiming this was shot in Kyiv. All identifiable individuals in the photo are Poles.  --Lambiam 11:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, here that photograph is even reported as documenting the safe return of the delegation from Kiev to Poland.  --Lambiam 11:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Truth is the first casualty of war, and I'm prepared to accept the possibility that either side fabricates news, but I do not find any of Helmer's arguments even mildly persuasive. Or can we even call them "arguments"? Helmer: "The press which has published these pictures knows them to have been faked and has assisted in concealing the real location." A bold assertion, but there is not even the faintest attempt in the blog posting to back this up by evidence. There is no evidence that anyone ever claimed the "fake Kyiv" photo was shot in Kyiv. We cannot compare the alleged discrepancy between the Coat of arms of Ukraine seen on the wall of the meeting room in one of these blurry images (and more clearly in this video at 0:10), and "those fixed to the walls of presidential meeting rooms in Kiev". But even if we could, the meeting was almost certainly not held in the usual pre-war presidential meeting rooms, but in a different, secure and undisclosed location. All considered, I think the whole post is a hatchet job that lacks any credibility.  --Lambiam 16:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Either one person is lying or four people are lying. Experience shows that the first scenario is the more likely. On the subject of credibility, there's no obvious discrepancy like this one which I was reading about earlier this afternoon in Notícias em Português under the headline Opinião: A importância de votar e as armadilhas das fake news (Opinion: The importance of voting and the snares of "fake news".)

Um vídeo que circulou nas rede sociais mostrava um protesto em favor do governo do Brasil que teria acontecido em frente à Embaixada do Brasil em Londres...

Nos mesmos dias em que o vídeo circulava, enfrentávamos temperaturas baixas e muita chuva por conta da "tempestade Eunice".

O vídeo mostrava muitos brasileiros em um dia ensolarado, trajados com camisetas, shorts e vestidos com a banda brasileira.

(A video which circulated on social media showed a protest in favour of the Brazilian government that would have happened in front of the Brazilian Embassy in London...On the same days on which the video was circulating, we confronted low temperatures and much rain on account of storm Eunice. The video showed many Brazilians on a sunny day, dressed in T-shirts, shorts and garments with the Brazilian flag.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.130.69 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all. I hadn't even noticed Helmer's statement that the press was in on the fakeout. I thought the idea was that they had been handed a bunch of pictures by the governments so that they could report on what they were told was a meeting in Kyiv. I'm more skeptical now. Helmer is supposed to post a follow-up next week answering some comments, fwiw. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here we have extraordinary claims with an extraordinary lack of evidence.  --Lambiam 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

March 19

Last battle determined by archers

When was the last battle in which some soldiers on the victorious side were trained and equipped as archers, and a majority of historians agree that was likely to have been a but-for cause of the battle's outcome (whether because the battle was won with arrows, or because their archery training improved soldiers' accuracy with guns)? NeonMerlin 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It may have been 1642 according to comments at Longbow#History and English longbow#Sixteenth century and later. The longbow was the only bow whose arrows could sometimes pierce metal armor, but the longbow required constant training and practice from an early age to be used effectively in combat... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The use of longbows in Europe continued into the 17th century, but determining whether they were the decisive weapon requires some judgement. Possibly the oddly-named Battle of the Herrings (1429) is a candidate, when the French and Scots attacked an English supply convoy and were beaten off by archers. The French thereafter learned to outflank the English archers, as at the Battle of Patay (1429) and the Battle of Formigny (1450), or batter them with cannon, as at the Battle of Castillon (1453). Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

See also The Longbow in the Wars of the Roses, when the longbow was still in widespread use, but success in battle was usually the result of the combination of arms rather than the dominance of one. Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to find more concerning The Victory of Khorgos depicting a 1758 battle and mentioned in Mounted archery#Decline but no luck really. fiveby(zero) 03:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I might put in a bid for some North American engagement between native Americans and colonialists, or even post-revolution Americans. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Possibly "Mad" Jack Churchill in 1940. The record is a bit spotty, but he regularly went into battle with a longbow and claymore, and some reports say that he recorded the last ever kill with an English longbow in 1940, but there's some dispute over that, given that a) The man did some truly mythical shit in his life and b) some of the mythical shit he did was real, but some of it was actually mythical (made up). --Jayron32 12:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The last significant battle won by a force without firearms against one with, that I can think of, would have been some of the battles in the Anglo-Zulu War; some of the Zulu were armed with antiquated muskets and rifles, but mostly they fought with spears such as the Assegai and the Ixwa. The Zulu were shockingly effective against the British in engagements such as the Battle of Isandlwana, where the Zulu routed the British in 1879, surprisingly late for a force armed with essentially iron-age weaponry against a force with relatively modern rifles. --Jayron32 14:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Sylvia Likens

I'm really confused on why her sister Jenny didn't report to the police much sooner? The horrific torture had been going for 3 months. Based on the article, Jenny could walk around freely. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:893D:DD23:D024:9A80 (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The book The Indiana Torture Slaying, later reissued as House of Evil, states: "The thought of going to the police for help never occurred to the crippled, 15-year-old child."^[8] Furthermore, our article states that Jenny "struggled against the urge to notify family members, as she had been threatened by Gertrude that she would herself be abused and tortured to the same degree as her sister if she did so", and also that she was ridiculed and subjected to bullying by neighbourhood girls if she alluded to her sister's situation. When her older sister Dianna was told about the torture, she did not believe them but believed they were exaggerating. So if the thought perhaps did occur to Jenny, it would have been reasonable for her to be afraid the police too would not believe her and that Gertrude then would find out she had notified the police and also torture her.  --Lambiam 11:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying the police wouldn't take the report seriously (without investigation) back in the 60s? Nowadays, most reports are taken very seriously. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:893D:DD23:D024:9A80 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not know the reputation of the Indianapolis police department in these days, and also not if Jenny, who was only 15, was aware of its reputation. I do know that in these days many police departments did routinely not handle reports of sexual assault and even rape very seriously.  --Lambiam 22:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do the Taliban hate ISIS?

I gather that the Taliban consider ISIS to be extremists, terrorists, murderers and heretics, worthy of extermination on sight. But what's the full story behind that? --146.200.128.101 (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Read Islamic State–Taliban conflict. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

'History of women' 'attending non-gender segregated large public gatherings as audience'

Greetings,

For one of my on going research I am looking for help in identifying sources/ refs on:

• 'History of women' 'attending non-gender segregated large public gatherings as audience or as common participant'.
• Public gatherings may be of recreational/ sports / music / religious / political / social nature
  • Emphasis on: 'non-gender segregated' , 'large public gatherings' , 'as audience or as common participant'
  • I am looking information on women of all background including the western ones.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The obvious example which occurred week after week after week throughout Western civilization for over 1500 years is attending church... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have attended Catholic Holy Mass services in Europe last century in which women were seated on the left and men on the right. While under one roof, they were spatially segregated. I suspect that in Orthodox churches such segregation is still common.  --Lambiam 21:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

...the segregation of the sexes in church was quite normal in western Europe through the medieval period. Although it was not practiced by the earliest Christian communities, the phenomenon had become common by the fourth century. [9] Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Think more broadly: public executions. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• While I am sure there are specific exceptions… in general, spectating at sporting events has been non-gender segregated. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Same for attendance at operas, theatres and concerts in the Western world, since at least the 18th Century and possibly earlier. It's commonly and casually reported in litterature from the period. Xuxl (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for sharing interesting information. Let me also share with you that Greek Civilization of 7th century B.C. were one of first known ones to ban women from participating in public gatherings.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Submarine on submarine combat

Someone was telling me recently. Apparently only once in the history of warfare has a submarine engaged another submarine in underwater combat and destroyed the other sub. When was this? Does anyone know. Apparently it's something you often see in movies, but it only happened the one time in real life. 146.200.128.101 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

See Sinking of U-864 (1945). Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

From that article: "The sinking is the only incident where one submarine sank another in combat while both were at periscope depth." That is not the same as being the only underwater submarine sinking by a submarine full stop, and is also a completely unsourced statement. Submarines go a lot deeper than periscope depth. I'm not sure you can ever definitively say it is the only case. Are the causes of all submarine losses in wartime known? EDIT:Should have read further, it is sourced further down the article. My point remains though, are records complete enough to make a definitive statement like that? Fgf10 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Pre-nuclear submarines spent a lot of time at or near the surface (when deeply submerged, they ran on limited battery power, and had to resurface to run diesel engines to recharge the batteries etc). AnonMoos (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, U-864 was using a submarine snorkel and running on diesel engines and because of a noisy fault, could be detected by HMS Venturer (P68). Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How could one submerged submarine attack another ? Torpedoes are for surface targets. Doug butler (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In the Second World War, torpedoes could have their running depth pre-set before launch. The British set a spread of depths to increase the chances of hitting the U-boat, but there was apparently still a degree of luck involved.

Modern hunter-killer submarines are designed specifically to attack other submerged submarines with acoustic homing or wire-guided torpedoes like the Spearfish or Mark 48. Although there have been numerous wars in recent decades, conflicts between submarine-equipped nations have been rare and none have been used against another submarine in anger.

To address Fgf10's point, the circumstances allowing one submerged submarine to sink another in the 1940s were so exceptional that the chances of such a thing going unnoticed were vanishingly remote. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Mandatory reporting in the United States

Taken from the article, "Mandatory reporting is also criticized because it jeopardizes the ability of people, including abused people, to seek medical treatment or maintain a therapeutic relationship, for fear of being reported." This statement is problematic. Why would the victims fear of being reported? The abusers are reported, not the victims. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:893D:DD23:D024:9A80 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed the wording, so it makes sense now. 172.220.8.114 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The authorities who get such reports are not all angels. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't reverted the IP because the section seems to lack sources anyway and was also poorly worded. (A better solution is to change it into something like "for fear of mandatory reporting" while keeping the abused people part intact, but with no sources it's a bit of a whatever situation.) But the suggestion victims aren't afraid of such reports is highly questionable, there are many possible concerns from victims from such reports.

For an unusual specific case see [10] but more generally see [11]. As the second source mentions, there are many possible consequences to victims of such reports, retaliation is the obvious one mentioned extensively in that source (whether on them or their children or as I explain later others like their pets), but for intimate partner violence it may include loss of their home, financial or even warped emotional support that comes from their abusers, embarrassment and shame that they feel from what happened becoming publicly known (this applies to everyone but it's probably heightened for the middle class and especially upper class and even more so if the people are well known enough that it may end up in the newspapers), risks they will lose their children, having to face a police and/or court system which they don't trust perhaps for good reason ([12] is a recent case in Canada which comes to mind).

Noting also that these concerns may not always be as severe as the victim imagines or the benefits for a report may outweighs such concerns, but if they don't think that way it's a moot point. The therapeutic relationship thing particularly comes to mind here since if such a victim was able and willing to seek such help, perhaps they will eventually come to the realisation they they do need to get out of the situation which may include reporting their abuser and their therapist may also be able to provide them with the contacts etc who will help. But this may never happen if they do not seek help because they fear doing so will lead to a report when they still they'd rather this does not happen. (For clarity, I'm not commenting on whether mandatory reporting is a good thing, simply saying it's perfectly plausible that such requirements will affect victims willingness to seek treatment in various ways so it's something that's fair to consider.)

For children you get similar things. See e.g. [13] and [14] Retaliation is one possible risk, but even with the abuse they may not want their parents to go to jail especially not if it means they may end up in the state care system which again perhaps experience will tell them is not necessarily a better experience. And even without jail, such things can tear a family apart, siblings and the other parent even when fully aware of what happened may blame the victim for what happened, and many may not be fully aware. Many child victims may have come to expect such abuse as normal and just like intimate partner violence victims, they may also have had bad experience with child welfare agencies, police and court systems. And note, even with restrictions on media reporting of abuse involving child victims, it may be difficult to hide what happened from the immediate community such as school. Remember also there are various degrees of abuse, but mandatory reporting can easily affect even lower levels of abuse. (Again to be clear, I'm not saying such abuse is acceptable or shouldn't be reported but I can understand why victims may be afraid of it being reported, especially if the child welfare system is particularly poor with how it handles such things.) I mean we just discussed the Sylvia Likens case above which while okay back in 1965, still shows that even in extreme case, reporting abuse is not simple for victims.

If you want to look into this more, rather than restricting this to mandatory reporting you can look into why victims do not report or leave their abusers since there will be substantial overlap. E.g. in NZ something which recently received a lot of attention is Pet Refuge [15] [16] [17], NZ first shelter for pets living in households affected by family violence. As mentioned in the sources, one reason some victims are afraid to leave their situation is for fear of the harm that will come to their pets when they leave as shelters and emergency accommodation don't generally cater for pets so they can't take them with them. While it didn't surprise me when I read about it, it's not something that had ever occurred to me before AFAIK. There's no reason to think abusers are going to leave pets alone if something happens due to mandatory reporting. To directly quote the second source

The women stressed that victims should be allowed to consider all the potential consequences of reporting before they allow their experience of violence to be reported to the police, because there are consequences for every decision that is made. It was clear that the participants had become adept at engaging in a cost benefit analysis for every decision concerning the violence and abuser. Unfortunately, the costs of reporting the violence often outweighed the benefits.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Reading that part of the article again, I was reminded I missed various form of family violence not covered by parents/caregivers abusing children or intimate partner violence e.g. children (used loosely i.e. including teenagers etc) abusing other children or children abusing their parents (whether non adult children abusing their caregivers or adult children potentially acting as caregivers abusing their parents). Many of the same concerns and more will apply to such situations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne What do you mean exactly by the Sylvia Likens case was okay back in 1965? Also, thanks for a very detailed explanation. It looks like this is a very complicated issue. However, not reporting at all is not a solution in my opinion. We need to reform the system (make it better) that handles reports and educate potential victims to be better informed in their decisions. Of course, I understand this is harder said than done. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:58C2:33C8:44B9:C38D (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

He's using "okay" in the sense of "admittedly", i.e. admittedly it was back in 1965 but is still relevant. --Viennese Waltz 08:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll say what a certain Professor Stephen Smallbone (google him if you like) had to say about mandatory reporting. He was talking in respect to cases of child abuse and/or molestation, to quote [18]:

I see a lot of talk about mandatory reporting, for example. I do not have a particular problem with mandatory reporting except to say that mandatory reporting does not by itself lead to good outcomes. If you have mandatory reporting but the child has a terrible outcome every time abuse is reported, then there is no point.(emphasis mine).

To put it another way, mandatory reporting is only useful if the systems (and the persons employed in administering said "systems") which are supposed to respond to these reports, intervene in a way which leads to a good outcome for the victim(s). If this is not what is happening, the very raison d'etre of mandatory reporting "collapses", and people will often decline to report. Achieving this outcome (getting good outcomes for the victim(s)) is easier said than done, but it remains a critical aim. Eliyohub (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

March 20

"Are Tories born wicked?"

G. W. E. Russell, in Collections and Recollections, famously tells us that the little daughter of a great Whig statesman asked her mother "Mama, are Tories born wicked, or do they grow wicked afterwards?", and was given the reply "They are born wicked, and grow worse". Do we know which little daughter of which great Whig? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Finding the query with various replies by the mother beginning with an 1840 novel:

• Bulwer, Lytton (1840). The Budget Of The Bubble Family. Vol. 1. p. 318. "* This enlightened query was really put a short time ago, by a young lady, of Whig extraction, to her mother!"
• Stanhope, Philip Henry (1889). Notes of conversations with the Duke of Wellington, 1831-1851. p. 265. May 9, 1841 "...story I had heard of Lady Minto."
• "The Chinese Classics". The Spectator. October 2, 1875. "...a certain little Miss Eden asked her Whig parent some fifty years ago,..."

I suppose "a certain little Miss Eden" refers to the influential Eden family; she could for example theoretically have been a daughter of George Eden (1784–1849), but then the name may have been made up by the writer purely to embellish and lend verisimilitude to the anecdote.  --Lambiam 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Lady Minto" probably refers to Mary Brydone, the wife of Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 2nd Earl of Minto. If Stanhope indeed heard the story from Lady Minto, some time before May 9, 1841, it is likely she took it from Lady Lytton Bulwer's recent novel and dissed this up as a "true story".  --Lambiam 12:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No more likely than it being the other way around - that Lady Lytton Bulwer heard the story and thought "Ooh! That'll make a nice little anecdote to work into my potboiler" - indeed she says as much in a footnote. Stanhope has it as one of Lady Minto's own daughters. One can easily imagine a young Fanny asking the question. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A Margaret Elliot (c1832 – 1901), author of Workhouse Girls reported as claiming it was a cousin[19]. I think she would be a daughter of Gilbert Elliot and granddaughter of Hugh Elliot brother of the first earl. ...one of the Adam family.? fiveby(zero) 13:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Margaret was the daughter of Gilbert Elliot, Hugh's son. I haven't found an Adam yet. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Adam is a slip for Eden? Hugh's brother-in-law was William Eden, 1st Baron Auckland, and Eden/Adam is an understandable mistake. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Horace Mansfield told how a little child Elliot (of the great Whig family) asked its Mama,... [20]

The first earl (Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound 1751-1814) had a sister who married into the Edens (Eleanor Eden Lady Auckland née Elliot 1758-1818).

Therefore, her eight daughters, the misses Eleanor (b 1777), Catharine (b 1778), Elizabeth (b 1780), Caroline(b 1781), Mary Louisa (b 1788), Mary Dulcibella (b 1793), Emily (b 1797) and Frances (b 1801) Eden, were all nieces of the first Lady Minto (Anna Maria Elliot 17??-1829).

And therefore children of their six brothers were also cousins to various degrees of the second Lady Minto (Mary Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound née Brydone)and the third Lady Minto (http://www.thepeerage.com/p2701.htm#i27004 Emma Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound née Hislop 18??-1882]). That peerage site only lists a marriage and children for the youngest brother (Robert Eden Baron Auckland 1799-1870, who had five daughters, the misses Eleanor (b 1826), Emily Dulcibella (b 1832), Florence (b 1835, Emma (b 1836) and Maria (b 1836) Eden. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, "Miss Eden" without the first name often means the eldest (currently unmarried) daughter. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 21

Brought to book

Banned user. --Viennese Waltz 16:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mein Kampf is an obvious precursor of the Second World War, as this [21] is of the war in Ukraine. Are there any other examples? 2.26.47.229 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what you are looking for? Can you please explain what you want more examples of? Are you looking for manifestos that were inspirations for wars? --Jayron32 15:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I would imagine that Karl Marx's Das Kapital was something of this nature, but I don't think he targeted any ethnic group specifically. 2.26.47.229 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Tehueco, Sonora

Hello,

A librarian or sysop... could change the title Tehueco, Sonora, to: Tehueco, Sinaloa? The reason is because the small town named Tehueco belongs to the El Fuerte Municipality, and El Fuerte Municipality is in the State of Sinaloa, not in Sonora. Besides, I have followed the geographic coordinates towards Google Maps, and the cursor pointer lands south of the Sonoran-Sinaloan limit; id est, in the State of Sinaloa.

Thanks in advance,
Heterotrofo (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like the old title was a simple mistake.  --Lambiam 23:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 22

What is this on the sculpture

Hello. In Antonio Frilli's sculpture of a veiled lady there are these peculiar, well dots or orbs that line the veil. What is this supposed to be exactly? Are these some sort of French beauty mocuhes? I would appreciate insight into this fashion detail

• note if link doesn't work search antoino frilli veiled lady sculpture with hat should bring the sculpture in question into view

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6206635 link to sculpture, please also note it seems this sculpture desgin has been cast and recreated many times

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7830:DE40:E0CE:1AE3:7144:FDD6 (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the technical terms, but in actual period photos from, and (for example) in period costume films set in, the Victorian and Edwardian eras when veils were fashionable in Western culture, such veils (usually black) were often 'strewn' or 'sown' with small dots of various shapes in just this way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe like this or this. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a specific term for them but they are probably Keshi pearls. Just google "veil Keshi pearls" images. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

American casualties in WW2

What was the bloodiest front for the United States in WWII? 198k died in general in the war with Germany on all fronts (most of them on the Western Front), 161k in the war with Japan. It is also said that almost 40k soldiers died for non-combat reasons already in continental America. Correctly, I understand that these are the soldiers who died there due to accidents, and those who died from diseases received at the front. If so, can it be said that most diseases are caused by the Pacific Front because of their fauna? Also in 2010, 74k Americans went missing, are they counted among the dead or are they considered separately? In this source, you can see 6k "declared dead" correctly, I understand that they are missing, who turned out to be dead. If so, it turns out 407 thousand soldiers died + 73k missing. If so, most of the missing on the Pacific front or not? https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)