Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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 15

Stauffenberg

From July 1, 1944, he was the new head of the reserve. Who was the preview head? -- 193.207.101.225

Assuming you mean Claus von Stauffenberg? If that is the case, I don't see anywhere that "reserve" or "July 1" is mentioned anywhere in that Wikipedia article. Can you clarify, is that the person to whom you are referring? And if so, can you show all of us where you are reading that he was the new head of the reserve (what reserve?) from July 1, 1944? Thanks! --Jayron 32 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Claus von Stauffenberg. Under general Rudolf Schmundt's recomendation, he become on July 1, 1944, the new head of the reserve's state major, under general Friedrich Fromm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.171.128 (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not seeing this information anywhere. Can you show us, via a link of some sort, where you are reading the information about the "reserve's state major" (I don't even know what that means)? That will help us find context for your question. Thanks! --Jayron 32 12:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German article says: Mitte Juni 1944 wurde Stauffenberg Chef des Stabes des Befehlshabers des Ersatzheeres Generaloberst Friedrich Fromm und am 1. Juli 1944 zum Oberst i. G. befördert. Here, Ersatzheer is Replacement Army, and Stauffenberg was chief of staff of the commander of the replacement army, Friedrich Fromm. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Gerhard Kühne: Four different people held the office of the Chief of Staff between 1938 and 1943: Colonel Ziegler, Colonel Haseloff, Major General Köhler, and Major General Kühne.[1] fiveby(zero) 13:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have things straight if possible - the OP is giving us a mess - the head of the reserve is probably a "Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshabers des Ersatzheeres", not his/her Chief of Staff. --Askedonty (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There we go: German article for the Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres says Am 26. August 1939 wurde General Joachim von Stülpnagel der Chef, blieb es jedoch nur wenige Tage, da er Hitlers Kriegspolitik als Katastrophe bezeichnet hatte. Am 31. August 1939, also unmittelbar vor dem deutschen Überfall auf Polen, der den Zweiten Weltkrieg auslöste, wurde General Friedrich Fromm (Bild) zum neuen Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres und Chef der Heeresrüstung ernannt. Er blieb dies bis zum 20. Juli 1944, als er in Zusammenhang mit dem von Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg verübten Umsturzversuch verhaftet wurde. Am Tag darauf, den 20. Juli 1944, wurde der Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler zum neuen Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres und blieb es bis April 1945. Roughly: the chiefs of the reserve army were, in order: Joachim von Stülpnagel for a few days in August 1939, Friedrich Fromm from August 31 1939 to July 20 1944, Heinrich Himmler from July 20 1944 to April 1945. It says Fromm lost his position in connection with von Stauffenberg’s coup which might be the source of the confusion. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, it looks like von Stauffenberg was the Chief of staff and not head of the organization; that makes more sense. Maybe its a translation issue for the OP, who appears to not be a native English speaker, but a "chief of staff" is more like a secretary or administrator and less like someone in charge. They don't steer or lead the organization; instead they act as the person who implement's the leader's plans. --Jayron 32 12:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Chief of staff" can have varied meanings; the Chief of the Defence Staff is the head of the British Armed Forces. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware. Thanks for correcting me! --Jayron 32 11:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stauffenberg was Chef des Stabes des Befehlshabers des Ersatzheeres meaning Chief of Staff of the Commander of the Replacement Army with the rank of Oberst im Generalsstab (Oberst of the General Staff). He served under Generaloberst Friedrich Fromm (strictly speaking Fromm was Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres meaning Chief of Army Equipment and commander of the Replacement Army). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas

Her son, Thomas Rolfe, had never met John Smith between her mother's death (1617) and Smith's death (1631)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.178.75 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rolfe traveled to England with his parents as a baby, and lived there until he was 20, and then returned to Virginia in 1635. John Smith (explorer) had returned to England in 1609 after being injured in a gunpowder explosion, before Thomas Rolfe was born. Smith never returned to Virginia and died in 1631. It is possible that the two met in England. Rolfe was 16 years old when Smith died. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

Whither Satanita?

The Satanita was a racing yacht built in 1893 for Mr A. D. Clarke and designed by Joseph M. Soper. She was said to be "the fastest cutter on a reach ever built". She is perhaps best remembered today for her rôle in an English contract law case. Our article does not mention her fate. A 2010 auction catalogue says she "was cut down to a yawl rig and sold into the Mediterranean in 1909 where it was owned by some colourful characters including Errol Flynn". I would like to know what happened to her, who were these other colourful characters, does she still survive? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know this is not the years you asked about but FYI for what happened between the collision and the court case, it seems she was repaired very quickly and was racing again by July 30. See the mentions, especially the appendix, in King Edward Vii As A Sportsman which shows her racing the Britannia yacht regularly until the book stops listing the matches in April 1897. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 1910 article says The Satanita was a fine and very powerful cutter, which originally belonged to Mr. C.D. Clarke and afterward to Sir Maurice Fitzgerald. Expect this was probably Sir John Peter Gerald Maurice Fitzgerald, 3rd Baronet of Valentia (we don't have an article). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was Sir Maurice Fitzgerald, 2nd Baronet of Valentia, 20th Knight of Kerry. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Dunraven (owner of the yacht which Satanita had sunk) got his revenge on the yacht, if not Mr Clarke, by beating Satanita for the King's Cup in 1905. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Sorry about that, I guess I missed Sir Maurice among everyone else's muuch longer names :) It seems another person owned Satanita between A.D. Clarke and Sir Maurice: In Yachting, May 1907: Britannia raced along the Littoral in 1895, 1896 and 1897 against formidable opponents like Mr. Barclay Walker's Ailsa and Mr. C.D. Rose's Satanita. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Richmond Cavendish cigarette card of "Satanita. Mr C. D. Rose" for sale on ebay right now! DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation of the yawl rig: The big racing yawls died out in the 'eighties but revived after 1896 when rating changes caused the splendid large cutters Satanita, Ailsa, Navahoe, Bona, Karian, Sybarita and the German Emperor's Meteor II, to dock their main booms and step a mizzen in order to win." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 1908 in Country Life: A famous old racing yacht has recently been sold out of the country in Satanita, which has been purchased by an Italian yachtsman, Count Vinarcati. and She wound up her racing career successfully in 1906 by winning the cup presented by the King and that by the German Emperor on consecutive days at Cowes. This is also another source for the change to yawl rig. (Vinarcati possibly a misspelling of Vimercati?) But I know! All this and still no stories about colourful characters after 1909 :) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But all fascinating stuff :) DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an interesting problem to noodle with. One last thing - did find a slightly colourful story about Sir Maurice at least. From a 1907 book that seems to be a random miscellaney of information. In a section about animal superstitions: At Cowes, the Kaisser's Cup was won by the Satanita, with Sir Maurice Fitzgerald's black cat on board. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need help finding American colonial memoir

Hello, about five years ago, I began reading a pre- emancipation memoir in Wikipedia's free elibrary. I lost the link and was unable to finish. Now, I am teaching American History and would love to find the book. Much has changed on Wikipedia since I read a portion of the book, and I haven't the time to relearn my way to your catalogue. I have also forgotten the title, although I recall the author's name was in the title and I think the year in the 1800's was also in the title. This was the year he and a friend left Connecticut on horseback at his parents urging due to his loss of vigor. The parents had wanted him to stay at home and work on the family farm, but his interests were scholarly. A professor had encouraged him to seek a PhD. The boys headed south and their view of the world began to change as they encountered actual slaves in Virginia. Might this topic sound familiar to any historians out there? if so, please contact me via notifications here. My login name is teachertand. Thank you! Teachtand (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Doctor of Philosophy#History in the United States, the first non-honorary PhD's in the U.S. were awarded in 1861, so there's a fairly narrow window between the start of studies leading to a PhD in the United States and the beginning of the Civil War. Also, the "Colonial period" in a U.S. context usually refers to the pre-1781 era... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By "Wikipedia's free library", you probably mean Wikisource... AnonMoos (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarifications. I did a Google search with the clues I left here, and feel certain that I found the author. My memories were not an exact match, but close enough. I have searched through this bibliography, but do not see any work by Weld defined as a memoir. Perhaps this was a collection of letters?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dwight_Weld Teachtand (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly some fuzziness around the subject. Theological awe ? T.D. Weld photographic portrait used in the article, from Commons is only loosely dated "1800's". Perhaps someone will be able to extract more information from the following link. --Askedonty (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will be following. Teachtand (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for being certain as to whether Weldon was the author or subject of the book, I cannot be certain that he was the author, but I felt as though I was reading a first person account. I hope to find some help at UVA. Seems I read they have a collection of his letters. Teachtand (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was she queen?

Was Margaret O'Carrolla ruling queen/chief of an Irish chiefdom, or was she just married to a king/chief? Her article is not very clear about her actual social position except for noting that she was a noblewoman, which is not very clear in this case.--Aciram (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how well such details are known for this period, but my impression is that as wife of the King she would have officially ranked as Queen (which her article actually calls her), and would have been able under Brehon Law to exercise authority on her husband's behalf: events mentioned in her article imply that she actually did so.

This really needs an answer from a bona fide expert on the topic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a decent number of reliable sources in the article; did you check those? --Jayron 32 12:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

What are the earliest explicit references to mass extermination during the Holocaust?

What are the earliest explicit references (in documentary, in letter, in diaries, in news) to mass extermination at extermination camps during the Holocaust? This would not include, for instance, Nazi speeches making reference to destroying Jews, or wartime reports of terrible treatment and death among the Jews. Rather, I am looking for the early explicit, unambiguous references or descriptions. Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: I guess it could be The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland (1943), based on information smuggled from Poland to the West by Jan Karski. --CiaPan (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the Jan Karski#Reporting Nazi atrocities to the Western Allies section and the Raczyński's Note (1942) article linked there for more details. --CiaPan (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wannsee Conference in January 1942 is generally taken as the outset of the Nazi extermination policy, although our article describes earlier actions dating back to mid-1941. All this was unknown to the Allies at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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?

[2] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, horrifiyng 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]

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 22