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 31

Please identify these weapons

This image from the National Archives is described as Crow prisoners in 1887 Montana. However, several websites (and apparently a book) claim it to be Cherokees being removed during the Trail of Tears episode and the question has been raised at Talk:Crow War. That is pretty certainly wrong on the basis of the quality of photography alone, but it occured to me that it can be dated more precisely by the weapons of the soldiers. Can someone knowledgable on historic rifles identify them for certain. Springfield Model 1866? SpinningSpark 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the rifles to a date prior to 1887 wouldn't help date the photo. Research from the archive might actually identify the individuals by name (note the numbering) and presumably tribal affiliation. The provenance of the photo seems rock solid; why would one dispute it? 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (link added:20:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm no expert on US rifles, but it looks very similar to the Springfield model 1873, see this image which shows the left-hand side of the rifle which can be seen in your photograph. However, you might be better off asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms for some better-informed advice. The various models of the Springfield rifle from 1863 to 1884 all appear rather similar and there may be a knack to telling which is which. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dating the rifles to a date prior to 1887 wouldn't help date the photo. Well yes it could. To show that the Cherokee/Trail of Tears claim is incorrect, it is only necessary to date the rifles to post 1830s. As for the names, the Native Americans in the United States article identifies them as a group including Chief Plenty Coups, but doesn't say where the information came from. Don't ask me why people dispute these things, ask the disputers. SpinningSpark 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even need to date it from the rifles. The Army uniforms should be definitive enough. Those are clearly not the uniforms worn by the US army in the 1830s. See here for a full history. The style of forage cap worn by the soldiers didn't appear until at least 1858. --Jayron 32 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, our article History of photography says that photography "was commercially introduced in 1839, a date generally accepted as the birth year of practical photography", so I should think that any photograph in the "Wild West" is very unlikely to pre-date 1840. Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the M1825 Pinwheel Cap, worn by the US Army until 1833, was rather distinctive (being polite). Alansplodge (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short note at Talk:Crow War linking to this discussion, which will hopefully solve the original query. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FDR's gesture

Just stumbled upon this where FDR is holding the navy guy's bended arm like couples or girlfriends do. I can't recall seeing such holds historically. Was it usual at that time between persons of the same sex? Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, apart from the fact that he was disabled? FFS. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FDR had trouble standing, and he's holding on to the guy for support. Loraof (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) FDR was a wheelchair user and often needed help to stand like this or this. See Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness for the details. Alansplodge (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Ken Burns' series on the Roosevelts, they talked about how he would walk. He would lock his leg braces into place, use a cane in his right hand and hold onto someone (often his son) with a firm grip with his left hand, as in this picture. Even with all that, his "walking" was accomplished by "throwing" his legs forward one at a time and in sync with moving his shoulders. They said that when it came time to deliver his post-Pearl Harbor speech, he wasn't overly nervous about the speech - he was concerned that he might fall while walking to the podium. Thankfully, he didn't. And it wasn't shame at being crippled, it was fear of looking weak to our enemies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to the voters. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The voters knew he was crippled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Axis didn't? (No wonder they lost the war.) The voters knew, but FDR didn't want to remind them of it and provide ammunition to the Republicans. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They all knew. But words don't have the impact pictures do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you corroborate that with a citation, Bugs (or Clarityfiend)? The Public Awareness section of the article already linked by Alansplodge suggests that it was widely assumed, both in the USA and abroad, that he had largely recovered from his earlier illness, and details the great lengths undertaken to obscure his true condition. Does that article need amendment? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find this 2013 Time article interesting.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though I note that one passage in it reads:

"Far more commonly, news coverage depicted him as someone who had been [article's emphasis] stricken by polio but who had triumphed over his affliction—which of course he had, despite the fact that he remained paralyzed. This was the image that FDR and his advisers wished to project, and they largely succeeded."

While the extent of his ongoing disability was potentially accessible to someone who followed much or all of the published news available, I wonder what proportion of the general US population was actually aware of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Curtis Roosevelt in a 1998 New York Times article: "Probably no president has been more conscious, more astute, in gauging the public's response and reaction to him personally. He knew instinctively that American voters did not want to have the president's disability thrown in their faces." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Independent article discusses a controversy regarding how FDR is to be depicted in his Washington DC memorial: "The extra statue is to depict FDR in the wheelchair he steadfastly avoided using for his public appearances lest it damage his chances of elected office." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Tobin's book, which I was surprised to see is used as a major reference for that article, makes quite clear that the idea that the US public didn't know FDR was crippled was a myth made up decades after his death, and he traces the sources of the myth. Everybody in the US in the 30s & 40s did know he was disabled. You are right that the article strangely does not give that impression.John Z (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was no coincidence that he started the March of Dimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The upshot of this interesting examination seems to me to be that the Article (or Articles) in question need some tweaking. As a disinterested Brit (open therefore to accusations of anti-Americanism by more partisan elements), I think it best that I leave it to those with a more direct interest in, and deeper knowledge of, USA history. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This pic reminds me of one from Whitey Ford's autobiography Slick. It's a picture of him at the retirement party of a General (MacArthur maybe? I don't recall and no longer have the book) and the elderly general is holding onto him in much the same way. It struck me as odd, though of course it's just an elderly man in need of a little support. Matt Deres (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One odd side effect of the widespread gay-awareness that has arisen over the last few decades is the tendency, by some observers, to read things into the past that aren't there. Men might be more openly expressive towards each other as "gay" was not on the general public's radar and thus there was no social stigma connected with it; while being openly expressive with opposite sex could raise eyebrows, or sometimes was illegal (see public display of affection). Here are Babe Ruth and three teammates singing in close contact.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how the money ( fees ) divided between udemy and instructor

pls. submit me with the answer of the above mentioned subject. thanks. Ashraf Ahmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.37.225.244 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on Udemy explains exactly the answer to your question in the section titled "About Udemy.com" where it explains different methods of dividing fees. --Jayron 32 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

Searching for Title of a book of Science-Fiction Short Stories and One other Story

I am looking for the title of a book of science-fiction short stories that probably came out in the 1960s - possibly later. Each story dealt with one of the planets in the solar system. I remember the story about Mercury having a sentient pool of liquid metal. There was even a story about an astronaut who was marooned in the asteroid belt and he had to stay awake or some malevolent spirits would take over his mind.

I am also looking for the name and author of a short story I once heard read on the radio (KPFK Los Angeles) probably in the 1970s or 80s. This dealt with some astronauts who had encountered a race of beings that were known for their advanced medical procedures. One of the astronauts had been severely injured and the aliens agreed to "repair" him if the humans agreed to a game. The landscape of the alien planet had pools of blood and creatures that looked like disembodied organs crawling around. After the astronaut was returned to the humans, the back of his head opened up and his brain crawled out and slid off to one of the pools of blood. I remember this story being very scary - in large part because of the dramatic reading. It may have been read by an actor named Dudley Knight or a man named Mike Hodel who hosted a show called, "Hour 25" on KPFK.

I have checked both of these questions online from time to time and have never been able to get an answer. I have even called some of the old-timers at KPFK to see if they might know anything about the second question - but no luck. 00:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)130.166.200.12 (talk)

Was the sci-fi series Ben Bova's Grand Tour series? It's from the 1980s-early 2000s, but his novel Mercury does feature life on Mercury... --Jayron 32 00:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walters also wrote a series about each planet of the solar system; and he wrote in the 1960s. --Jayron 32 00:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To give some negative information for purposes of elimination, the book was not The Science Fictional Solar System (1979) edited by Isaac Asimov, Harry Greenburg & Charles D. Waugh – the Mercury story in that anthology (Alan E. Nourse's 'Brightside Crossing') does not match the OP's description. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better news! The Mercury story must be 'Sunrise on Mercury' (1957) by Robert Silverberg. However, the other 12 stories in his 1983 collection of the same title do not have a Solar-systemic theme, so the volume the OP read was likely an anthology (of stories by various authors) which included Silverberg's. This will take more digging. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further negative information: the anthology was not Exploring Other Worlds (1963), edited by Sam Moskowitz, which has a Solar-systemic theme but does not contain Silverberg's story. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Sunrise on Mercury, I found this publication history, which lead me to Tomorrow's Worlds, Ten Stories of Science Fiction, edited by Silverberg, with 10 Stories, one for each of the (then) 9 planets, number 10 for the moon. The Amazon description here matches. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Robert Silverberg bibliography and Robert Silverberg are the relevant Wikipedia links. We do not have, as yet, an article on the specific story. --Jayron 32 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case any of the story titles may jog the OP's memory, the contents of Tomorrow's Worlds can be seen here. Deor (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there isn't a story set in the asteroids in Tomorrow's Worlds . . . . Its ten stories are (as Stephan Schultz said above) set on the 9 planets (including Pluto) plus the Moon, so this can't be the OP's volume.

Another negative eliminated, it's not Arthur C. Clarke's Tales of Ten Worlds (1962), which contains no stories corresponding to either of those the OP describes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James K. Polk photograph

James Polk supposedly aged (undated) photograph from the Amon Carter Museum

James Polk supposedly aged (undated) photograph from the Amon Carter Museum
1849 photograph

I remember coming across the first photograph of Polk a while back ago, which is supposed to show the effect of presidency on Polk's face. It is undated and obscurely used. But the more famous photograph of him was made on February 14, 1849, so is there any possibility that the first is a misidentified person? I've copied a few description of the first photograph into the files description on the Wiki commons. Can someone else help me dig up a little more scholarship about the first image and possibly cast more light on it..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful study of the subject(s)'s features gives me no reason to question that the two photographs are of the same person, KAVEBEAR. Different plates, lenses, techniques and lighting (not to mention makeup) can produce markedly different impressions, which is why prominent individuals employ expensive photographers to literally "cast them in a better light." In addition, everyone may look different from day to day depending on one's current states of mind and health.

Conjecturally, in the (likely later) "better" photo, Polk is momentarily feeling relaxed and cheerful through looking forward to his impeding retirement from office 18 days hence, and the consequent relief from its responsibilities. If, on the other hand, the "poorer" photo is the later, it might be quite close to his death from cholera (only 103 days after his retirement) and his health may already have begun to decline. {The poster formerly known as 987.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S/he means 87.81.230.195, actually. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC

He does indeed, but he mis-typed – now corrected! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish role in Bolshevik revolution

What role did Jews play in the Bolshevik Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.189.195 (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have two articles, Bundism, which describes the facts of Jewish participation in the Russian Revolution, and Jewish Bolshevism, which concerns the conspiracy theory used by of those with an anti-Semetic agenda. Alansplodge (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Individual Jewish members of the Bolsheviks played various roles during the revolution. According to our article Jewish Bolshevism, "Jewish Bolshevik party leaders included Grigory Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Sokolnikov, and Leon Trotsky. Kamenev was of mixed ethnic Russian and Jewish parentage." Note, however, that there is no evidence of these Jewish members (a relatively small number of the overall party - "On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 23,000 members, of whom 364 were known to be ethnic Jews. According to the 1922 party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total." (Jewish people made up about 5%of the Russian population at the time)) were directed by their race or religion (in fact, most were atheistic) - they were simply Bolsheviks who happened to be Jewish. As former KGB colonel Vassili Berezhkov puts it, "The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change."

Note also that much of the writing on this subject has been influenced by racist and/or anti-Semitic views, starting with propaganda from anti-revolutionary White Russians and continuing with Hitler and the Nazi's revisionist history and racial theories. As our Jewish Bolshevism article says, "Jewish Bolshevism is an antisemitic canard which alleges that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks. Similarly, the Jewish Communism theory implies that Jews have been dominating the Communist movements in the world. It is similar to the ZOG conspiracy theory, which asserts that Jews control world politics. The expressions have been used as a catchword for the assertion that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy, and it has often coincided with overtly aggressive nationalistic tendencies in the 20th century and 21st century." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were vicious pogroms before the Revolution. The advent of Bolshevism didn't change that. In fact the priests, whether Catholic or Orthodox, used to stand up in their pulpits Sunday after Sunday and urge their congregations to kill the Jews. See Blood libel. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the last Emperor (Czar), Nicholas II of Russia, was a ferocious anti-semite who openly encouraged pogroms. This did tend to have some effect into encouraging many Jews (who thought they could only benefit from a change of government) to join movements seeking to overthrow the Czar. And just as the fall of Saddam Hussein ultimately led to many Iraqis finding out that the alternative might be even worse, so too did many Jews who helped the Russian Revolutionaries gain power come to bitterly regret their actions - if they managed to survive (many if not most were murdered in Stalin's purges once he came to power). 110.140.193.164 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the Jews ultimate "role" in the USSR was the same as it was under the Tsars and under Nazi Germany: To be targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Whaling in Japan and??

After recently reading the Whaling in Japan wiki article I am curious why antiwhaling groups focus so much on Japan and not Norway or Iceland? I didn't even know what Norway and Iceland hunted whales until I read this article. 199.19.248.107 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking without a source here, but from personal experience, here in Australia there has been over the years multiple reports of Japanese whalers entering Australian waters to whale, enforced by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Maybe Norway and Iceland don't enter other country's waters? JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan does not hunt whales in Australian waters. Japan hunts whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary which surrounds Antarctica. Commercial whaling is prohibited in the Sanctuary which Japan does not infringe.
Sleigh (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the waters are with the exclusive economic zone of the Australian Antarctic Territory, though this may not have any legal impact - see Antarctic Treaty System. Secondly, Sleigh, you concede that commercial whaling is prohibited in the sanctuary. Well, the International Court of Justice, in response to a case brought by Australia, ruled that Japan's whaling program did not meet the definition of "scientific", and was thus "commercial", which would make it a breach of the rules governing the sanctuary - see Whaling in Japan#ICJ_case. But all this doesn't answer the OP's question - why are Norway and Iceland's whaling activities effectively ignored by those same groups which aggressively fight the Japanese program? 110.140.193.164 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes is not ignored by the protesters - but far fewer whales are killed than by the Japanese fleet, and (apart from Iceland) there is no commercial international marketing of the meat. For the same reason, they don't make much fuss about the small amount of whaling permitted in the USA. Wymspen (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report: Norway Now Kills More Whales Than Japan and Iceland Combined.^{Foreign Policy, 14 June 2016} -- ToE 15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the role of Australian territorial claims is paramount here. The Australian Antarctic Territory is not widely recognized by other countries, and presumably the same is true of the vast exclusive economic zone that they claim based on it. This zone presumably has real value for other things besides hunting whales, such as mining, and I imagine as as the present Ice Age draws to a close i.e. Antarctica melts this value should greatly increase. (Improved undersea remote technology could work too) But as in the South China Sea, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the rest is that failure to protest is the same as consent. So as described in Whaling in Japan, the Rudd government of Australia was sending official ships to track and monitor Japanese whalers in the sanctuary before the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society started making headlines. But there's only so much a government can do diplomatically, whereas SSCS, based in and "tolerated" by Australia, can attempt more. Indeed, I remember seeing an episode of Whale Wars in which one of the international volunteers had to be taken off the crew abruptly for some reason, I forget why, and there was somebody from the New Zealand Navy ready to take over at a moment's notice. (Using an allied military is a common thing in the English-speaking countries; see ECHELON) So I absolutely think of these environmental activists as being the tip of the drill bit for some future derrick off the balmy shores of Antarctica, and to be sure, that's an Australian drill bit. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article from June this year, Norway Now Kills More Whales Than Japan And Iceland Combined. further highlights the discrepancy. The US based pressure group, Sea Shepherd, concentrates its efforts on Japanese whaling activity, although "Norway and Iceland openly defy the ban on commercial whaling, but Watson said that Sea Shepherd has not had the funding to support 'a two-front battle.'" [3] Perhaps they see Japan as a winnable battle, as Norway and Iceland blatantly ignore the moratorium, whereas Japan attempts to circumvent it under the guise of scientific research, a position that may be more easily undermined. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From where I stand, John Howard was still PM when Sea Shepard started to make headlines, so it's not possible that the Rudd government was sending ships before Sea Shepard was making headlines. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norway isn't "ignoring" the moratorium, since Norway isn't bound by it. The whaling industry in Norway is whithering on the root regardless, for a lack of marked and recruitment to the industry - shame really, since whale meat can be very tasty when prepared fresh (source: OR (own experience)). WegianWarrior (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Norway chose not to be bound by it. A matter of semantics really. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think WegianWarrior and Alansplodge have touched on a key point here. Even to those who regard opposition to whaling as hypocrisy or whatever, Norway and to some extent Iceland have a much more defendable position than Japan. The court case mentioned above really just demonstrated what many felt for a long time. (This is somewhat similar to the NPT, where many see those who never joined but have nukes are seen as different from those who did but are seen as wanting them.) The fact that Japan was heavily invested in the IWC process also meant they more so than other whalers were pushing other countries including landlocked ones to join to support their stance. (The fact that the US and others opposed to whaling were doing similar, and Japan found themselves in their current pickle partially due to US pressure is either forget or ignored, as is common people only seeing the negatives in their opponents.) When you consider countries like Australia and New Zealand, the fact that a lot of Japanese whaling is happening in Antartic waters whereas Norway is in the Atlantic obviously makes a difference. And frankly there's probably some degree of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on that last sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly perceived to be so by the Japanese: '"Japanese people feel that, yes, maybe there is a little bit of racism in the way in which we are considered in comparison with the way Norway or other whaling nations are treated," said Noriko Hama, a professor of economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto.' National Geographic - Why Is Japan Whaling's Bogeyman When Norway Hunts Too? and "A senior official of the country's Fisheries Agency, Joji Morishita, told the programme that Japanese people felt much of the criticism was racist". BBC - Whaling 'safe for a century'. Alansplodge (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more discussion on the Japanese POV here albeit not addressing the Norway issue. [4] Of course it isn't just Japanese [5], [6], [7] (although it's not clear if the person still thinks there's racism). Interesting Sea Shepard claims they are more active against Norway but they didn't specifically address why there actions against Japan get more attention even outside NZ/Australia. (For that matter their evidence they aren't benefiting from racism seems weak at best.) [8] Note that I didn't say all opposition or even a significant chunk is racism but there probably is some (i.e. it's a factor for at least some opponents). And considering the rhetoric you see in forums etc, if these aren't trolls or plants it's difficult to claim there isn't some. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

request for opinion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should cyberbullying, online shaming/harassment, internet vigilantism be legal? What about doxing, threat to commit harms, or death threat?

This is a freedom of speech issue. Hypothetically, if I shoot a lion dead somewhere in Africa and then the Internet finds out about it and a ton of people on social media decide to channel their outrage by hurling insults, abuses, and death threats at me. Should such acts of bullying and harassment be illegal in the manner that the criminals are arrested and social media sites ban their accounts? If a person commit suicide to escape online abuse or criticism, is it his/her fault for even bothering to read those offensive messages in the first place instead of looking away? Should threats to commit harm such as death threat be given special treatment since it at least tries to make the victim feel unsafe? Does the target/victim being over 18 years old or old enough matter? Keep in mind that this is not about being offensive but more about harassing a specific person. Also, my question is not about moral/ethics but whether not not and how much regulation on online shaming and threats is needed for a peaceful society where "vigilante" and other self righteous online mob upholding their "justice" gets prosecuted for breaking the laws. 128.164.241.93 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate topic for this forum. If you wish, we can direct you to information about the laws in your jurisdiction, but as explained at the top of this page, this is definitely NOT the place to discuss questions of "should" on any topic.--Jayron 32 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may also depend on the policies of a particular website. For example, Wikipedia has strict rules against those kinds of things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many social media sites do not require stuff is illegal for it to be unwelcome and accounts subject to bans. Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (U

September 5

Proportional economic loss vs total economic loss

1. What's the difference between "proportional economic loss"[9] and "total economic loss"[10]?

2. How does the "risk deciles" scale work on these maps? Does it go from blue, yellow, red in the worst-risk-to-least-risk order or the least-risk-to-worst-risk order?

3. Let's say someone wants to find out how safe their house is from natural disasters. Which of the two maps would be more helpful? Pizza Margherita (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Nicholas' Day

According to Saint Nicholas#Santa Claus, the saint's feast day is "6 December in the Gregorian calendar, in Western Christianity; 19 December in the Julian calendar, in Eastern Christianity". In other words, the Orthodox Church celebrates St. Nicholas' Day circa New Year's Day on the Gregorian calendar. Why the difference, i.e. why don't they both celebrate it on 6 December on their respective calendars? The source for this statement is print, so I'm unable to check it. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be incorrect. St Nicholas' Day is 6th December in both traditions - 6th December O.S. is 19th December N.S. The OS/NS distinction in Saint Nicholas Day#Central Europe is the wrong way round (or, at least, the brackets are positioned incorrectly), although the Holy Land section has the correct dates. Tevildo (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests that it's remained at 6 December in the OS calendar, but in the NS it moved to 16 December in 1582 (following the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in October of that year), then to 17 December in 1700, 18 December in 1800, and 19 December in 1900. I don't know of any analogous case.

For example, Christmas has long been on 25 December. It remained on that date in the NS calendar, but the adherents of the OS calendar were originally 10 days behind, and they didn't consider that 25 December had arrived until 10 days after then, i.e. what the NS-ers were calling 4 January the next year. Then the OS date of Christmas went to 5, 6 and finally 7 January NS. In 2100 it will go to 8 January. But they still call that date "25 December". The date that moves forward (from the NS perspective) is the OS date, while the NS date remains constant. But in St Nicholas's case, the reverse seems to apply. Why would that be?

It seems to me that the traditional date was 6 December, and that is the date that should continue to apply in the NS calendar. The OS date is the one that moves forward: in 1582 it would be have been 16 December, then 17, 18 and now 19 December. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong. but I think our article is trying to say is that 6 December in the Julian (OS) calendar now falls on 19 December in the Gregorian (NS) calendar. Am I right? If so, our article needs to be clarified... Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. From the New Style perspective the Old Style date is moving back, because at the end of most centuries their February is longer. I've fixed the article. 86.151.51.82 (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that works. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crown prince

When was the first documented usage of the title "Crown prince" in Europe (this could be rendered in another European language but not equivalents such as Dauphin or Prince of Wales)? The article does not say. Also knowing the first English language usage of this term to refer to an individual would be nice as well, --96.41.155.253 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says the English term was modelled on the Danish and German words. It gives these dates for the earlest attestations in print:

German Kronprinz - 1669
Dutch kroonprins - 1692
Danish kronprins - 1693
Swedish kronprins - 1703
English crown prince - 1699

Also interesting: "German Kronprinz was perhaps formed on the model of Kronerbe , lit. ‘crown heir’ (1627 or earlier) and Kurprinz heir apparent of an elector of Germany, lit. ‘electoral prince’ (1640)."

And this is the 1699 attestation in English: "London Post 8 Sept. The Danish Secretary residing here, will suddenly notify to the States, the Death of the King his Master, and the Elevation of the Crown Prince to the Throne." 184.147.125.97 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much Vermont produce goes to Canada?

What proportion of the agricultural produce of Vermont is exported to Canada? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the bastard?

Where do we get the name of the font Bastarda (lettre bâtarde) from? I assume it's nothing to do with William since the dates are wrong, but then which bastard is it honouring? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another meaning of bastard [11] -"derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin", for which "mongrel" is given as a synonym, so possibly a hybrid of earlier typefaces. Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source (linked from our article), "the term 'bastard hand' implies a union between an informal or 'base' script and a formal or 'noble' script" - that is, it's an intermediate between two recognized forms, as Mikenorton suggests. Compare bastard file, bastard sword. Tevildo (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. Thank you. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]