Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) |
175.121.96.170 (talk) →Germany stabbed in the back: new section |
||
Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
::Yes, it seems it has assumed some kind of incorrect [[Houston, we have a problem|precedence]]. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
::Yes, it seems it has assumed some kind of incorrect [[Houston, we have a problem|precedence]]. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::As with "Play it again, Sam." ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
:::As with "Play it again, Sam." ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Germany stabbed in the back == |
|||
How and why was Germany stabbed in the back by greedy Jews during WW1? |
Revision as of 22:01, 7 November 2017
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
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.
October 31
Circencester
I've run across a few references to "Circencester", in contexts that seem to mean "Cirencester". Is this an alternative spelling, or is there a subtle distinction? I haven't found any clear statement that they are the same. -- Elphion (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It appears to be nothing more than a spelling mistake, or a typo. It isn't an alternative name, and there is no other location of that name. Looking at the etymology of the name, none of the variant or historic forms give any indication that there has ever been a version with the extra c in it. Wymspen (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at that etymology in the article out of curiosity and it said "An early Welsh language ecclesiastical list from St David's gives another form of the name Caerceri where Caer is the Welsh for fortress and Ceri is cognate with the other forms of the name." Are you sure? Wnt (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2
Free availability of texts by B. Russell
An enormous body of texts by Bertrand Russell is available online. Who "abandoned" the copyright and where can this decision be found in writing? GEEZERnil nisi bene 07:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe they are copyright violations and no one has ordered them to be taken down. Or maybe they aren't copyright violations at all. Without any specific example to go on, no one here can evaluate your question to give it a meaningful answer, since we have no evidence your suppositions are correct. Your question inherently contains the plurium interrogationum fallacy, famously the "When did you stop beating your wife?" problem. First, provide evidence to establish that your suppositions are true, THEN we can answer your second question. Until then, we don't even know the basis for your main question is meaningful. --Jayron32 10:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Now that you HAVE provided evidence, I see that many of of those works dates from before 1923. Copyright law of the United States is such that all works published before 1923 are all in the public domain. for the United Kingdom, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom states that, for works published before 1911, the term is author's life + 7 years, for works published after that date it is author's life + 50 years. As Russell died in 1970, his works ALL became public domain in 2010 in the UK, and those published before 1911 became public domain in 1977. For U.S. published works on that page which are later than 1923, that page does not publish them, but rather directs you to the actual copyright holder, for example this U.S. published article, linked on your page, directs readers to the original publication, to preserve copyright, being an American publication it is still under copyright. This work for example, is from 1910, so is in the public domain in both US and UK. This work is also in the public domain; though its date is too recent for the U.S. copyright to have expired, it was originally published in the UK, meaning that it is in the public domain there. --Jayron32 12:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- That was what I was looking for. Thanks. GEEZERnil nisi bene 13:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- 2010 is only 40 years after Russell's death, so unless there is some other reason, they won't all become public domain until 2020. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Crap. Math is hard. --Jayron32 13:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- As stated in the article linked above, the 1995 Regulations were retroactive, so copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the author's death (i.e. 2040). The expiry dates noted above are no longer relevant. MChesterMC (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
For clarification, this obviously isn't legal advice but I should point out the above responses after Jayron32 only appear to relate to the UK situation. This may affect the situation elsewhere, but not always. In the particular case of the US, generally for everything other than sound recordings and in some cases non English works, it's normally accepted that if it receive an authorised publication before 1923 that version is now in the public domain in the US see [1], [2], [3], [4] and the earlier linked Copyright law of the United States. While the Uruguay Round Agreements Act controversially gave copyright protection to stuff that had been in the public domain in US, it didn't generally affect stuff published before 1923. As one of the sources mentions, what "published" means (as well as whether it was authorised) is also sometimes controversial.
But ultimately, for any of Russell's works which did receive authorised publication before 1923 and are in English, these work would almost definitely be in the public domain in the US. As the above site seems to be a US site, they may not care whether it's still eligible for copyright protection in the UK. As I said, this isn't legal advice and if you actually plan to use any of the works yourself in any way, you should seek that yourself somewhere suitable (i.e. not here).
For stuff intended for the Wikimedia Commons, in most cases works need to be in the public domain in both the country of origin and in the US to be uploaded there, as it increases the chance the work will be in the public domain elsewhere if it's so in the country of origin. (But not always, hence why the work also has to be in the public domain in the US since the Wikimedia Commons is a US website.) Content can generally be uploaded to en.wikipedia itself if it's only in the public domain in the US, but the works would need to be something we have use for. However it would be best to seek the advice of someone more familiar with our copyright norms than me before uploading anything to either en.wikipedia or Commons.
- As stated in the article linked above, the 1995 Regulations were retroactive, so copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the author's death (i.e. 2040). The expiry dates noted above are no longer relevant. MChesterMC (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Crap. Math is hard. --Jayron32 13:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- 2010 is only 40 years after Russell's death, so unless there is some other reason, they won't all become public domain until 2020. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- That was what I was looking for. Thanks. GEEZERnil nisi bene 13:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- As to the actual question, the books appear to be hosted by the Bertrand Russell Society, which our article states was founded by (among others) his only daughter. Not sure whether she would have inherited the copyright. I'm failing to find a good source for this (and the references I have are not ones I can share), but there is no mechanism for "abandonment" of copyright in the UK. Putting a work in the public domain is effectively licensing the work to everyone, which amounts to the same thing, but is legally distinct. MChesterMC (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- His only daughter was not his only heir (he also had two sons who survived him, but are now dead but have living children). So the copyright issue unfortunately can't be resolved on that basis. - Nunh-huh 22:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The most authoritative of these sources says that the copyright in a published work expires seventy years after publication. If that's true, some or all of the writings are in the public domain. Copyright law of the United Kingdom does not mention this, however the last external link confirms it. Section 5(1) of the regulations, however, which is the ultimate authority, says that time runs from publication rather than death only if nobody knows who wrote the work. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say some random commercial service is that authoritative. I definitely wouldn't say it's more authoritative than the UK government [8] who say it's "70 years after the author’s death" for "Written, dramatic, musical and artistic work". (Although that doesn't deal with older works instead says you should contact them.) Also what do you mean by "last external link confirms it"? The last external link seems to be [9] and it doesn't say "copyright in a published work expires seventy years after publication". If anything it seems to say something similar to your last sentence i.e. copyright is from publication only if the author is unknown (although it's a little more complicated than that). In other words, AFAICT MChesterMC comment above is correct and it's 70 years from author's death in the UK. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, there are two tracks on that flowchart and I took the wrong track. I can't get through to the government website. Please explain what this message means:
- I wouldn't say some random commercial service is that authoritative. I definitely wouldn't say it's more authoritative than the UK government [8] who say it's "70 years after the author’s death" for "Written, dramatic, musical and artistic work". (Although that doesn't deal with older works instead says you should contact them.) Also what do you mean by "last external link confirms it"? The last external link seems to be [9] and it doesn't say "copyright in a published work expires seventy years after publication". If anything it seems to say something similar to your last sentence i.e. copyright is from publication only if the author is unknown (although it's a little more complicated than that). In other words, AFAICT MChesterMC comment above is correct and it's 70 years from author's death in the UK. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.gov.uk (for example, passwords, messages or credit cards). Learn more NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID ReloadHIDE ADVANCED www.gov.uk normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Google Chrome tried to connect to www.gov.uk this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be www.gov.uk, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Google Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged. You cannot visit www.gov.uk right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.88.70 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Forget that. I've switched to another browser, which is problem free. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
What painting is this from?
Can someone help me track down the painting from which the below image is an extract?
https://pixady.com/image/0imp/
(Note, I didn't want to upload the image to Wikipedia itself, so used a third party image hosting service for sake of ease).
Thanks in advance.
Discounttents (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- My guess is this is a painting or illustration about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Compare the subject matter to some of the images here. I don't find your exact painting, but something about it (the canoes, the style of tent and dress, the giant Rocky Mountains like wall behind them) gives it that feel. --Jayron32 11:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Jakob_Danielsen_-_01_Kaassassuk_thrown_out_of_the_house.jpg/220px-Jakob_Danielsen_-_01_Kaassassuk_thrown_out_of_the_house.jpg)
There seems do be a signature (?) on the tent to the right? (www.tineye.com doesn't find another copy.) GEEZERnil nisi bene 11:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- To add a bit more information, it's being used in an item related to the North Pole, so I was wondering along the lines of something North Pole related. As you say, though, TinEye didn't turn up any matches. Now is the winter of our discount tents (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
CAUTION - When I selected the OP's link, my virus checker flagged it as a threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is Thomas A Binks, Caught in the Ice [10]. --Viennese Waltz 12:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- There the signature on the tent is clearly readable.
- "Painting by Thomas Binks of Hull whaling ship The Dauntless, which was caught in ice and sank off Greenland in 1829. You can see the crew salvaging the ship's contents. A model of another whaling ship, The Swan, is on display at Hull Maritime Museum, along with its log book." GEEZERnil nisi bene 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- And finally; Thomas Binks, 1799–1852; other sources state that he was a colleague of John Ward (painter). Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Pointless bickering over who should be thanked 2001:8003:533A:DA00:C580:2AAA:3E41:5BF8 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
|
User:Jayron32 posting wild guesses is not helpful to anyone and neither is trolling other people’s comments. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- When have I ever been helpful? I've never made that claim. --Jayron32 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just in the last few days, Legacypac seems to have anointed himself the ref desk dictator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- He makes a valid point though; please refrain from guessing until all other evidence-based avenues have been explored. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just in the last few days, Legacypac seems to have anointed himself the ref desk dictator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- For future reference, this painting is held at the Ferens Art Gallery, in the North Sea city of Hull, England. The Ferens lies across the main city square from Hull Maritime Museum, which hosts an impressive collection relating to the once enormous fishing and whaling industries, and, through this history, items made by the people of the Arctic. Often when whaling or exploring ships were iced in, Inuit visited and traded. There's quite a painting genre of icebound ships: [11] [12] not to mention the Whaling Disaster of 1871 for context. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
How is Day of the Dead different from All Saints Day?
In other words, is the former just the Spanish version of All Saints Day or a little bit different meaning that people actually celebrate both separately as different events? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comparing the articles Day of the Dead to All Saints' Day explains the difference quite easily. It should be noted that the Day of the Dead is not a Spanish holiday. It is unknown in Spain. It's a Mexican holiday. It also doesn't originate from a Christian tradition, whereas All Saint's Day does. --Jayron32 15:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- All Saints' Day originates from the pre-Christian Celtic tradition of Samhain, which the Church Christianized by investing it with the power of not just one saint (like John the Baptist for Midsummer's Day) but all saints. (The idea is probably independent of Samhain, but settling the date near the end of October almost certainly reflects Celtic tradition.) -- Elphion (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not an expert User:Elphion, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that an Irish festival influenced Pope Gregory III when he set the date for All Souls Day in 8th century Rome? [13] Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Though the name is Irish, Samhain was the beginning of the Celtic year, and the folk tradition lingered well into Christian times throughout the Celtic areas of Euruope. -- Elphion (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- But no evidence of a link except the date? Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- The last paragraph of the lead to All Saints' Day has some material (and refs) to help with your research on this topic. Matt Deres (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- But no evidence of a link except the date? Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Though the name is Irish, Samhain was the beginning of the Celtic year, and the folk tradition lingered well into Christian times throughout the Celtic areas of Euruope. -- Elphion (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not an expert User:Elphion, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that an Irish festival influenced Pope Gregory III when he set the date for All Souls Day in 8th century Rome? [13] Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- All Saints' Day originates from the pre-Christian Celtic tradition of Samhain, which the Church Christianized by investing it with the power of not just one saint (like John the Baptist for Midsummer's Day) but all saints. (The idea is probably independent of Samhain, but settling the date near the end of October almost certainly reflects Celtic tradition.) -- Elphion (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that while the celebration's origin is not Christian, it has become associated with the Catholic celebration of All Souls' Day (Día de los Fieles Difuntos, or "Day of the Faithful Departed" in Spanish). As Jayron32 mentions, the articles do a good job of explaining the differences. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
140.254.70.33 -- All Saint's Day is a Christian religious occasion on the Catholic liturgical calendar. Día de Muertos is a Mexican cultural celebration beginning on All Saint's Day whose general overall theme seems to be death. Halloween is an Irish and U.S. cultural celebration on the night before All Saint's Day whose theme (insofar as there is a general theme) is fear. AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Halloween (All-Hallow's Eve to give it its Christian church name), in Scotland was thought of as a day when the barrier between this world and the next was weak. This belief was almost certainly pagan in origin. To confuse the spirits than managed to break through, people dressed as ghosts and goblins. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
See Santa Muerte, which has been denounced by the Catholic Church, Ohio State. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
November 3
How many countries are dependent on the US for military protection?
Or I think that’s what the worldwide military bases are for. Is the entire world dependent on the US for international peace? But then, what’s the deal with modern countries and their insistence on having an independent government even though the government is reliant on foreign aid? In the past, weaker countries would probably be absorbed by more powerful countries. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- List of countries with overseas military bases#United States should help you research your questions about US military presence and United States Agency for International Development should help you answer your question on U.S. foreign aid to other countries. The general underlying question you seem to have is probably best addressed by starting at the article titled American imperialism and seeing where it leads you. --Jayron32 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for supplying the links. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Military bases have different uses. Some are not for protecting the host country but for helping the US itself with a base of operations. The host may be paid to allow the base, or it may be there against their will like Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- The last 2 are not necessarily an or. As per the article, the US (tries to) pay Cuba for Guantanamo although
they don'tCuba doesn't cash it since they don't recognise the agreement it's based on (and the amount is pitiful). But you could also easily imagine a case wherethea country does recognise the agreement and although they no longer wantsit they also recognise there's nothing they can do under international law and so does accept the payment (especially if it's more reasonable). Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Edited at 03:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)- You may also want to look at national interest. The US believes that its own interest is best served by having a large number of independent allies and trading partners and is prepared to pay to protect them. It's not a one-way-street; the majority of recent US overseas interventions have been militarily supported by coalitions of friendly nations. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- The last 2 are not necessarily an or. As per the article, the US (tries to) pay Cuba for Guantanamo although
- Military bases have different uses. Some are not for protecting the host country but for helping the US itself with a base of operations. The host may be paid to allow the base, or it may be there against their will like Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for supplying the links. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Non, since its mostly a pure political choice who to choose as enemy or make peace with and which country or international group of countries to choose for an Military alliance or not. You could argue very obviously Saudi-Arabia is total dependent on buying military equipment from the USA and UK, since they have no capacity to build "hightech" military goods themselves, but just some weeks ago they signed some contracts in Russia. So this seems less a real dependency but more consequence from choosing and keeping to a specific geopolitical alliance (or not). --Kharon (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the question is actually why America doesn't absorb its military dependencies, Ohio State should read entangling alliances, Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine and American exceptionalism. Historically, the US has had no interest in absorbing non-alien cultures, ours being defined as a secular republican form of English common-law rule tempered by the liberalism of John Locke and a historical familiarity with the Roman Republic, and Suetonius's and Edward Gibbons' Decline and Fall thereof.
- The effect of our defending NATO and funding the UN at US Taxpayer expense has been to subsidize "our dictators" and the European welfare state, with the current tragic results in the EU and the Philippines just to name a few. Let me add the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers for good measure. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Medeis -- In the 1850s, many Southerners were anxious to seize parts of the Caribbean and/or Latin America in order to bolster slavery, and the idea wasn't considered all that unrealistic, since the U.S. had recently expanded through the Mexican Cession, Gadsden Purchase, division of the Oregon Country, etc. See Ostend Manifesto, Knights of the Golden Circle, William Walker (filibuster). The Crittenden Compromise mainly failed due to disagreement on the question of whether slavery would be allowed in territories that would be acquired by the U.S. in future. The Civil War put an end to this... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The greater importance, than 19th century politics, is the 20th century concept of Neocolonialism. The U.S. learned well that actual colonialism and actual imperialism, whereby a country forcibly conquers another land tends to generate a lot of negative baggage. Neocolonialist practices means the U.S. gets to maintain the illusion that its colonies have actual sovereignty, by allowing them to do so on paper, while exerting its influence through economic, cultural, and military means. Sure, you get to SAY you have your own country, so long as you play by OUR rules. Neocolonialism gives the US all of the benefits of an actual colonial empire but gives it plausible deniability to claim it is supporting independence and sovereignty in its colonies. --Jayron32 04:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Medeis -- In the 1850s, many Southerners were anxious to seize parts of the Caribbean and/or Latin America in order to bolster slavery, and the idea wasn't considered all that unrealistic, since the U.S. had recently expanded through the Mexican Cession, Gadsden Purchase, division of the Oregon Country, etc. See Ostend Manifesto, Knights of the Golden Circle, William Walker (filibuster). The Crittenden Compromise mainly failed due to disagreement on the question of whether slavery would be allowed in territories that would be acquired by the U.S. in future. The Civil War put an end to this... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I wrote a thesis on Polk's presidency and the Mexican-American war. We even had the option to buy a window on the Sea of Cortez at the time of the Gadsen Purchase but didn't, we incompetent conquerors we. I find the above imperialist narrative hysterical in both meanings. Our subsidizing the welfare states of lands we will never rule and wouldn't if we could counts as "neocolonialism"? I suppose a sugar-free diet is neogluconialism, and the fact that two of the richest Americans of the 1990's, Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey are examples of neoracism. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I can't speak on behalf of the believers in neocolonialism, but given our military bases in Japan and Germany), both Group of Seven) countries, our buyout and defense of the G20 countries of Mexico's debt, and our South Korean protectorate, one assumes they are our meatpuppets. This ignores the fact that we both house and own the UN. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Military bases are mostly connected to prior wars and history. If they where really tools of Neocolonialism there where much more bases in Africa and South America. Neocolonialism also does not work well on developed countries and it does not develop real dependencies alto it will likely try to boost the believe in these. Obviously the escalating Anti-Russian sentiment is one way to convince the importance of close ties to a powerfull, "guarding", friendly Nation. --Kharon (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- The idea of a powerful state supporting a weaker one in return for favours (rather than just taking it over) isn't new - see Client state.
November 4
Early Soviet union republics
I'm trying to figure out what was going on in Central Asia in the 1920s. For example: Khorezm People's Soviet Republic says it was the "Khorezm SSR" on 20 October 1923. This is one of few instances where there was an "SSR" that was not independent, and not a union republic. I don't think it was part of the Russian SFSR, so my question is: Was it a separate republic in the Soviet Union, but not a union republic, so kind of the same relationship a map might give to the difference between a full U.S. state and a territory?
Similar question but possibly more confusing: The Uzbek SSR. Sources agree it was established on 27 October 1924. Sources also agree it became a union republic on 5 December 1924. What was its status for the time in between? Part of the USSR outside the Russian SFSR, but not a union republic? Though now I'm finding a source (Statoids.com) that says it was the Uzbek ASSR for that time, meaning it was still part of the Russian SFSR.
Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- These are questions of nomenclature and obscure points of Leninist/Trotskyite and local Marxist and nationalist dogma and pragmatics. Can you restate this in one clear singular question, perhaps in separate threads if you want to address separate issues? Otherwise you might need to read several scores of articles to cover the ground you've prospected. You can also specifically address @Soman: our resident expert on such matters. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- On Khorezm, the Russian-language article is a bit clearer: it was recognized by the Russian SFSR as an independent state on March 4, 1921. On October 30, 1923 it joined the Union as a constituent republic, then on October 27, 1924, it was split between Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the Karakalpakstan autonomous region of the RSFSR. On Uzbekistan, the Russian-language article states that it was formed in 1924 by grouping various bits of territories from elsewhere, but it does not give precise dates, so more research will be needed to answer your question, which is quite clear, by the way. --Xuxl (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think this interview with Stalin clarifies the POV of Soviet histiography: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1922/11/18.htm . Khorezm by 1922 was not considered a socialist state, but a nominally independent state which was clearly tied to the Soviet Union. Between the name change to Khorezm SSR in 1923 and the bifurcation into of Khorezm SSR and merger into into Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs in 1924, the Khorezm SSR remained outside of the USSR proper. The national delimitation process was gradual over a few months, so it is not strange that the exact constitutional status of some territories would be in limbo. At no stage did the USSR relinquish territorial claims over Central Asia whilst the Turkestan ASSR transitioned into the Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs. I find some online mentions of a 'Uzbek ASSR', but this seems to be mainly the result of typos. So whilst the Uzbek SSR was founded in 1924, it was recognized a constituent republic of USSR at the Third Congress of Soviets of the USSR held in Moscow, May 13-20, 1925. But I'd consider it as part of the territory of the USSR the the entire period between 27 October 1924 and May 1925, as the area remained under USSR laws and sovereignty (but presumably outside of the RSFSR proper). What changed in May 1925 is that the Uzbek SSR would have gained representation in all-union institutions. --Soman (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- This map http://minchanin.esmasoft.com/maps/hist1970/hist10-11.jpg , the bottom right box, should clarify how the borders looked like between RSFSR, Uzbek SSR and Turkmen SSR as of 27 October 1924. --Soman (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think this interview with Stalin clarifies the POV of Soviet histiography: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1922/11/18.htm . Khorezm by 1922 was not considered a socialist state, but a nominally independent state which was clearly tied to the Soviet Union. Between the name change to Khorezm SSR in 1923 and the bifurcation into of Khorezm SSR and merger into into Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs in 1924, the Khorezm SSR remained outside of the USSR proper. The national delimitation process was gradual over a few months, so it is not strange that the exact constitutional status of some territories would be in limbo. At no stage did the USSR relinquish territorial claims over Central Asia whilst the Turkestan ASSR transitioned into the Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs. I find some online mentions of a 'Uzbek ASSR', but this seems to be mainly the result of typos. So whilst the Uzbek SSR was founded in 1924, it was recognized a constituent republic of USSR at the Third Congress of Soviets of the USSR held in Moscow, May 13-20, 1925. But I'd consider it as part of the territory of the USSR the the entire period between 27 October 1924 and May 1925, as the area remained under USSR laws and sovereignty (but presumably outside of the RSFSR proper). What changed in May 1925 is that the Uzbek SSR would have gained representation in all-union institutions. --Soman (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the responses; I may be coming back to you if I continue this project. :) (It's Territorial evolution of the United States, but for the Soviet Union) --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Kit Harrington
Kit Harrington is NOT a descendant of Robert Catesby 1605. There are No descendants from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.28.254 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you have a complaint about the accuracy of Kit Harington or Robert Catesby, you should discuss it at talk:Kit Harington or talk:Robert Catesby respectively. Or, if you have references supporting your assertions, you can just fix it yourself, as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The claim was unreferenced, so I've added a citation needed tag. Harrington may well be descended from William Catesby? Dbfirs 21:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- It IS referenced, in the BBC link in the article.[14] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- That website just says "Did you know?". I feel that the claim on the genealogy reference is safer. Dbfirs 21:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- So Kit Harrington thinks he is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby. Obviously, that don't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- How is the research by TheGenealogist in any way related to what Kit Harrington thinks? Well other then the fact it was perhaps inspired by the public claims. (As said below, I don't quite understand parts of the pedigree and in particular don't quite see how the direct connection is made between the son of Robert Catesby probably Robert, and John Catesby the ancestor of Kit Harrington and nor do I see where the text makes this direct connection, but none of it seems to relate to what Kit Harrington thinks.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- So Kit Harrington thinks he is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby. Obviously, that don't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- AFAICT, our article on Robert Catesby is still unreferenced in terms of him having any children. I found some non RS which suggest his son who survived birth was Robert who married the daughter of Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot) and Martha Wright, but couldn't find any RS directly commenting on his children. It's possible the RS you added does, I couldn't quite work out parts of it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see Thomas Percy does say "Percy's daughter by Martha may have been betrothed that year to Catesby's eight-year-old son, creating a family connection between the two men" with a ref.Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- This item[15] makes contradictory claims about whether Harrington is directly descended or is only a cousin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Um but this only has a little to do with whether Robert Catesby had any children. I mean sure, if Harrington is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby then clearly he did, but as I indicated above it would be much better if we can find stuff which directly deals with the children of Robert Catesby for the article on him. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand TheGenealogist pedigree a bit better now, and see it does confirm an only son of Robert Catesby who married a daughter of Thomas Percy. But still don't know if confirms the name of the son. Does the four periods/dots indicate the son was given the same name as his father, or rather that his name is unknown? Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- It looks to me as if the name of his son has been expunged from that record, as if it was too shameful to mention. I do know a member of staff at the Society of Genealogists, and I will ask her if she can shed any further light on this. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I now have this comment from her: " the pedigree shown in the Visitation of Northampton shows that Robert Catesby’s son (name unknown at the time the Visitation was taken in 1618) married the daughter (also name unknown) of fellow conspirator Thomas Percy. I had a quick look at this in office last week but didn’t have time to verify it or follow up if the names have been filled in. Nor can I at present see how the jump from the Suffolk Catesby family (ie Kit’s) which seems to go back to mid 1600s links to the Northamptonshire/Warwickshire families, other than the assertion that all do. Needs further work" --TammyMoet (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- This item[15] makes contradictory claims about whether Harrington is directly descended or is only a cousin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see Thomas Percy does say "Percy's daughter by Martha may have been betrothed that year to Catesby's eight-year-old son, creating a family connection between the two men" with a ref.Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- That website just says "Did you know?". I feel that the claim on the genealogy reference is safer. Dbfirs 21:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- It IS referenced, in the BBC link in the article.[14] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just a little off-topic aside — the name is Harington, with just one r. Everyone who has used it in this discussion has spelled it wrong, except for me, and the only reason I spelled it right is that talk:Kit Harrington came up red. I don't recall that I had ever heard of him before, so it was certainly no merit of mine. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Using trees to conserve archaeological sites
I have been reading about Carl Patsch's methods of conserving the remnants of the Mogorjelo villa rustica. Among other things, he planted a thicket of Mediterranean cypresses, pines and shrubs. The idea was to lower the negative impact of rain (especially rain + insolation) and wind on the newly excavated ruins. Where can I read more about this method? Was it used by anyone else? Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not finding anything helpful at the moment, most results that Google threw up are focused on preserving archaeology by removing trees, such as Mapping the risk of damage from tree roots for the conservation of archaeological sites: the case of the Domus Aurea, Rome. I'll have a more thorough look later, unless anybody finds anything in the interim. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- (O/R alert) Sorry, I don't have an answer for you, but, as Alansplodge mentioned, trees are usually a problem to be gotten rid of rather than a solution. As the roots delve into the earth, they play havoc with the stratigraphy of the site, whether it's pushing stuff downwards or otherwise just muddying the lines of demarcation between levels. They can also simply destroy the artifacts as well. My supposition would be that the bushes being planted were meant to form a barrier around the site, or at least to not be directly on top of the sensitive areas. Matt Deres (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a thorough report on UK forestry and archaeology, including the damage forestry does to ancient sites. When I did a forestry MSc a whole module was devoted to the topic, as the damage to ancient unscheduled monuments has been extensive, eg in Snowdonia and Dartmoor. To answer your question, section 3.3 of the PDF has some interesting observations. Ericoides (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
November 5
Statues in Athens
Did antique Athens have statues or busts of contemporary people in the cityscape? Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Bust of Pericles was installed at or shortly after Pericles' death, so this comes close (depending on how strict your definition of "contemporary" is). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- There was also a statue of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, but again it depends on your definition of contemporary since it was probably created about 30 years after the events. There was also an interesting "Statue of the priestess Aristonoe" in the 3rd century BC - was she a contemporary person? Mythological? She's just a random priestess apparently! We have a lot of articles about ancient Greek sculptures (see Category:Ancient Greek sculptures by period) but most of them were mythological characters or idealized human figures, not specific contemporary people. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Ancient Greeks used live casting of models for their bronzes. However, the statues depicted gods.
Sleigh (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)- Well, sometimes. There were various techniques and the the statues didn't always depict gods. We have a pretty detailed aticle about Ancient Greek sculpture. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
November 6
Does any country make all-able bodied elementary schoolers run metric mile+ races?
America makes them run 600 yards. I think I wasn't forced to till 3rd or 4th grade. I dreamt the entire non-disabled 2nd grade had to run 200 meters uphill then 1300 down in the rain and few could make the time that gave a prize and was wondering if any country was this mean. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the UK there's The Daily Mile scheme; "a popular, simple and free initiative that sees children run/walk/jog for 15 minutes every day in their primary and nursery schools" which schools can choose to adopt. I think it's an Imperial mile, but it doesn't sound terribly prescriptive. It's promoted by a charity rather than by the government, which has its own Childhood obesity plan recommending that "Every primary school child should get at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity a day". (Opinion - maybe it's crueller to let children get fat and die early from horrible diseases?) Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's also JOGG (Jongeren Op Gezond Gewicht or "Young People at a Healthy Weight") scheme in the Netherlands which has adopted The Daily Mile according to this article "181 scholen in Nederland meedoen aan The Daily Mile". More about JOGG and its French originator EPODE (Ensemble Prévenons l’Obésité De Enfants or "Together let’s Prevent Childhood Obesity") is here in English this time. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Kids of Unusual Size" Andy Dingley (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Gezond indeed translates as "healthy," according to Mr. Google, similar to the German gesund (as in gesundheit). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Boris, I do understand that, I had four years and two semesters of German, but "sound" is a synonym of "healthy". Given gezond and sound are cognate, I am wondering, is this an officially sanctioned term, or just someone's personal ad hoc translation? μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- America has guidelines which individual schools can follow, but the federal government has no authority to force kids to run. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- What's a metric mile? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- See if the article titled metric mile explains it to your satisfaction. --Jayron32 13:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, silly me for not looking. So it's an approximation of a mile which fits a whole number of meters. Is it always 1500m? The aritcle seems equivocal. I can see how 1500m is a whole 100m different from a mile, is that the point the OP is making, of the standard being set at 1500m plus rather than 1609m plus? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- In most international contexts, 1500m is colloquially the "metric mile", but for U.S. High School competitions, it is 1600m, the latter being closer to the true value. --Jayron32 16:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if "metric mile" is limited to use by American broadcasters? I don't watch athletics much any more, but I've only ever heard 1,500m - usually expressed as "the fifteen hundred meters" or just "the fifteen hundred". Matt Deres (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- 1,600 metres is 4 times around a standard athletics track LongHairedFop (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Which is close to 440 yards, a quarter mile. Tradition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- 1,600 metres is 4 times around a standard athletics track LongHairedFop (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if "metric mile" is limited to use by American broadcasters? I don't watch athletics much any more, but I've only ever heard 1,500m - usually expressed as "the fifteen hundred meters" or just "the fifteen hundred". Matt Deres (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- In most international contexts, 1500m is colloquially the "metric mile", but for U.S. High School competitions, it is 1600m, the latter being closer to the true value. --Jayron32 16:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, silly me for not looking. So it's an approximation of a mile which fits a whole number of meters. Is it always 1500m? The aritcle seems equivocal. I can see how 1500m is a whole 100m different from a mile, is that the point the OP is making, of the standard being set at 1500m plus rather than 1609m plus? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- See if the article titled metric mile explains it to your satisfaction. --Jayron32 13:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
November 7
Khrushchev's shoe
Per shoe-banging incident, no video records had been found, but this has been around for some time. Is it genuine? Specifically, if you stop at around 0:20, the object is identifiable as a shoe. Brandmeistertalk 04:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- This report from 2003 is unsure, conflicting reports from eyewitnesses exist. This book here has an entire chapter devoted to the controversy, even discussing the possible existence of a film which itself may or may not be evidence. It's an interesting perspective. --Jayron32 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've stopped, and re-played and nudged and played, numerous times. But that object is wholly unindentifiable as a shoe to me. Surely it would have had to have been his own shoe? To me the object looks white. Was he partial to slingbacks, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it's even Krushchev. As for the shoe incident, editorial cartoonists subsequently often depicted him holding one of his own shoes in his hand. I recall seeing video of Krushchev and his buddies banging on their desks with closed fists, like rebellious schoolchildren, in an attempt to drown out whoever was talking. That stuff came some time after the shoe incident. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. When and how does that earpiece miraculously appear? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not miraculously, seems to be a translation earpiece. The guy may not be identical to Khrushchev, but this could be due to poor video quality, as the letters on the table plaque are illegible to me (otherwise they could have been a clue). Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I mean it's not there before the shoe action begins? It looks like (at least) two separate shots have been spliced together. I also see that there are other delegates behind him who are laughing? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's no question that it's two different items interwoven. One is definitely Krushchev, giving a speech and then walking away from the podium. The other is a clip of someone who kind of resembles Krushchev, banging something on his desk, too grainy to make out what it is. It could just as easily be rolled up papers as it could be a shoe. And his suit is different between the two clips. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. And while we're at it I'm sure Imelda Marcos has been very hard done by, too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Right! So, checking newspapers.com (a pay site, and not comprehensive) all the initial reports agree that he took off his shoe and waved it around "as if" he were going to bang it on the desk, and only some claimed that he actually hit his desk with it. In that supposed shoe-banging clip, the guy to the right of him should be Gromkyo (according to the pictures at the time) but that doesn't look much like Gromyko. So I'm inclined to believe it's a re-enactment by actors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I still agree with you. And here's Andy, in case you forgot how he looked. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Right! So, checking newspapers.com (a pay site, and not comprehensive) all the initial reports agree that he took off his shoe and waved it around "as if" he were going to bang it on the desk, and only some claimed that he actually hit his desk with it. In that supposed shoe-banging clip, the guy to the right of him should be Gromkyo (according to the pictures at the time) but that doesn't look much like Gromyko. So I'm inclined to believe it's a re-enactment by actors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. And while we're at it I'm sure Imelda Marcos has been very hard done by, too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's no question that it's two different items interwoven. One is definitely Krushchev, giving a speech and then walking away from the podium. The other is a clip of someone who kind of resembles Krushchev, banging something on his desk, too grainy to make out what it is. It could just as easily be rolled up papers as it could be a shoe. And his suit is different between the two clips. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I mean it's not there before the shoe action begins? It looks like (at least) two separate shots have been spliced together. I also see that there are other delegates behind him who are laughing? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not miraculously, seems to be a translation earpiece. The guy may not be identical to Khrushchev, but this could be due to poor video quality, as the letters on the table plaque are illegible to me (otherwise they could have been a clue). Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. When and how does that earpiece miraculously appear? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it's even Krushchev. As for the shoe incident, editorial cartoonists subsequently often depicted him holding one of his own shoes in his hand. I recall seeing video of Krushchev and his buddies banging on their desks with closed fists, like rebellious schoolchildren, in an attempt to drown out whoever was talking. That stuff came some time after the shoe incident. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- In 1960 I saw TV news coverage on NBC which clearly showed him pounding on a desk at the UN when he disliked someone’s speech. My wife confirmed she saw it as well at the time on CBS. If it did not happen, who orchestrated the campaign to convince the American people they had seen news film of it, and what date was the false memory introduced?Edison (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Liz would be proud of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- The news clip I recall was him pounding on his desk with his fists, alternating from one to the other. The contemporary accounts that I've just read say that the shoe was instead of his "usual" approach of pounding his fists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Within the first 40 seconds of this clip[16] you can see Krushchev and at least one other of his minions pounding on their desks with one or both fists, just the way I had recalled it. I haven't watched the whole thing, so I don't know if it addresses the shoe incident or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Famous situations and quotes are often twisted to fit expectations. How often have you heard, "Houston, we have a problem" when it was actually, "Houston, we've had a problem."? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems it has assumed some kind of incorrect precedence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- As with "Play it again, Sam." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems it has assumed some kind of incorrect precedence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Germany stabbed in the back
How and why was Germany stabbed in the back by greedy Jews during WW1?