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.
December 31
Amputation that is indirectly necessary in order to save one's life--question about the law
If someone saves someone from a fire that would have otherwise killed them, but has to amputate a part of their body in order to free them so that they could indeed save them and evacuate them, would this person owe anything to the other person later on for amputating a part of their body?
Also, would it depend on whether or not this amputation was consensual--even if this amputation was indirectly necessary in order to save this person's life in any case?
As for owing this other person something, I mean something like owing them financial compensation for amputation them even if this was literally the only way that their life could be saved from this fire.
FWIW, I'm not asking for opinion about this so much as about if there were any relevant legal cases and/or precedents in regards to this. Futurist110 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- A good place to start could be Good Samaritan law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- So all of this assuming you're talking about the US - The good samaritan laws themselves are statutory codifications of the typically much weaker common law rule on good samaritans. As described by the California Supreme Court, a person who undertakes to rescue another where no prior duty existed "is under a duty to exercise due care in performance and is liable if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking." The actual good samaritan statutes vary by state but a typical one will shield from liability both medical and non-medical life-saving measures, while exempting from this shield acts of gross negligence, unnecessary intervention, and other stupidity. In your given hypothetical of a life-threatening situation in which the choices for the victim are A) Death; and B) immediate amputation by this dude who is here now using this particular procedure; there is obvious immunity under the common law rule alone, as the victim's losses were only reduced. However, whether A and B were true may be debated after the fact. For instance the danger facing the victim may be subject to factual dispute, as may be the necessity of the samaritan's particular actions, or the necessity that the samaritan be the one to perform them. If there is room to dispute any of these things you're looking at a state law issue. When emergency amputations have to be performed, for instance to extract a victim of a building collapse, it is almost universally the case that consent is first obtained, and some form of licensed medical provider is present, an EMT at least, to perform the procedure. In that case liability protection would be provided under the conditions of other state laws. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify--according to this common-law rule, if you inflict harm on someone (even without their consent) but only do this in order to prevent an even greater harm occurring to them, then you would be immune from prosecution? Also, Yes, I get that the facts of the case might be disputed after the fact, but I'm presuming a scenario where the facts were not disputed. As in, where there was no time to wait for emergency personnel to come save and amputate this person and instead one had to personally amputate this person if one wanted to have any chance of saving this person from a house fire (or at least if this is what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would have believed in those circumstances). In such a scenario, would the non-medical person doing the amputating always be immune from prosecution and/or from being sued for financial damages by this other person, or would it depend on whether or not this other person would have actually consented to this amputation--and what if they wouldn't have, either due to them being unconscious (and incapable of being woken up) at that point in time or due to them being conscious but nevertheless preferring to die in a house fire (or whatever) than to live as an amputated person? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly, if we were to imagine a sort of spherical-cow of a fact pattern, and there is no dispute that the good samaritan's actions produced the best possible outcome for the victim, and the good samaritan was not breaking some other law at the time, and the good samaritan was not told to fuck off, the good samaritan cannot be held liable for the harm that yet lingers. Suing over long-term costs that would not have occurred if the victim had simply died is something that, to my knowledge, is only entertained when a DNR was explicitly ignored. As a matter of public policy a judge might even rule that expressions of nonconsent outside of licensed medical care may be ignored, so as to avoid unnecessary deaths arising from miscommunication, or the confusion/mental-illness of the victim, but that's just me speculating. In terms of actual things that have actually happened, there really are plaintiffs who have sued their rescuers, saying they'd rather have not been rescued. Absent proof that some exception to the good samaritan statute applies, those lawsuits fail. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- DNR = Do Not Resuscitate? Also, would someone telling their would-be savior that they prefer to die in a house fire than to lose an arm and/or leg but survive also fall under the DNR category? Futurist110 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- DNR does mean “do not resuscitate”. And no, I don’t think telling someone “Don’t save me if you have to cut my hand off” counts as a DNR in the same way that hospitals use advance directives. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- DNR = Do Not Resuscitate? Also, would someone telling their would-be savior that they prefer to die in a house fire than to lose an arm and/or leg but survive also fall under the DNR category? Futurist110 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly, if we were to imagine a sort of spherical-cow of a fact pattern, and there is no dispute that the good samaritan's actions produced the best possible outcome for the victim, and the good samaritan was not breaking some other law at the time, and the good samaritan was not told to fuck off, the good samaritan cannot be held liable for the harm that yet lingers. Suing over long-term costs that would not have occurred if the victim had simply died is something that, to my knowledge, is only entertained when a DNR was explicitly ignored. As a matter of public policy a judge might even rule that expressions of nonconsent outside of licensed medical care may be ignored, so as to avoid unnecessary deaths arising from miscommunication, or the confusion/mental-illness of the victim, but that's just me speculating. In terms of actual things that have actually happened, there really are plaintiffs who have sued their rescuers, saying they'd rather have not been rescued. Absent proof that some exception to the good samaritan statute applies, those lawsuits fail. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify--according to this common-law rule, if you inflict harm on someone (even without their consent) but only do this in order to prevent an even greater harm occurring to them, then you would be immune from prosecution? Also, Yes, I get that the facts of the case might be disputed after the fact, but I'm presuming a scenario where the facts were not disputed. As in, where there was no time to wait for emergency personnel to come save and amputate this person and instead one had to personally amputate this person if one wanted to have any chance of saving this person from a house fire (or at least if this is what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would have believed in those circumstances). In such a scenario, would the non-medical person doing the amputating always be immune from prosecution and/or from being sued for financial damages by this other person, or would it depend on whether or not this other person would have actually consented to this amputation--and what if they wouldn't have, either due to them being unconscious (and incapable of being woken up) at that point in time or due to them being conscious but nevertheless preferring to die in a house fire (or whatever) than to live as an amputated person? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah the key to these Good Samaritan immunity provisions is that they usually stop after ordinary negligence. They aren’t likely to protect against gross negligence, and certainly not against recklessness or more. And of course, consent doesn’t enter into that analysis—if you consent you’re already essentially waiving the right to go for negligence. I understand OP’s question was specifically about amputation, but the general field of Good Samaritan law is pretty agnostic as to the nature of the aid or assistance provided, and while amputation sounds impressive, the fact is a good lawyer and doctor team will be able to make less visually impressive things like a permanent limp or chronic pain into successful cases. Put differently, the nature of the injury (whether amputation or muscle weakness) speaks more to the damages phase of litigation than the liability phase. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- But were you actually grossly negligent and/or reckless in my hypothetical scenario above? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- In the hypothetical you pose, it was necessary to save the person’s life. I do not believe you could even argue simple negligence there. This really all comes down to an issue of basic tort law. Indeed, your hypothetical could easily be one you’d see in a first-year torts final. There’s also technically a tortious battery argument buried in there, especially when consent is withheld (and really I’d expect it to be pleaded in addition to negligence if such a lawsuit were pressed). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The battery charge is unlikely to stick, is it? Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I don’t know, actually. “An unwanted or offensive touching” is the classical formulation of tort battery as I recall. Also medical battery is a thing. One of the keys would be how damages get calculated; if the “damage prevented” enters into the calculus. Also necessity can be a defense. In property torts, necessity can be invoked to justify, for instance, destroying someone’s property to protect other property from being burned down. I could see that being extended to the protection of human life.
- I don’t really practice this stuff so I’m going from memory with a very healthy dose of intuition. I can suggest checking out some general tort law hornbooks and, if you’re feeling daring, the Restatement of Torts (second was current last time I looked, though there might be a third). Don’t get hung up on the facts of your hypothetical though. It’s not likely you’ll find a bit of case law exactly on point, or even if you did, it might not still be good law, or might be anchored in a bygone era of tort law. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The battery charge is unlikely to stick, is it? Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The solution could be to place a large knife within reach of the victim and let the victim make the decision to self-amputate or not. Meanwhile you're trying to call 911. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- What if the victim is unconscious and can't be woken up, though? Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- For a person like me the phantom limb pain may or may not be enough to make me want to sue you, I do not know how bad phantom limb pain is and most amputees only get itches or less bothersome sensations like existence so I can't say. Also amputations have tended to be so painful as to overpower alcohol's anesthetic effects in very drunk wounded soldiers so if your amputation wakes me up for a person like me that amount of pain may be on the level that causes permanent damage which would give me another justification to sue you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- What if the victim is unconscious and can't be woken up, though? Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the hypothetical you pose, it was necessary to save the person’s life. I do not believe you could even argue simple negligence there. This really all comes down to an issue of basic tort law. Indeed, your hypothetical could easily be one you’d see in a first-year torts final. There’s also technically a tortious battery argument buried in there, especially when consent is withheld (and really I’d expect it to be pleaded in addition to negligence if such a lawsuit were pressed). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- But were you actually grossly negligent and/or reckless in my hypothetical scenario above? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds perfect. And the cyanide capsule or grenade or gun or whatever if you have one. Make sure he knows you're calling 911 before you leave if you can only give explosives. getting into the action movie scenarios now, though some Americans do carry guns Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you amputate me without anesthesia to save my life when you could've shot me I'm suing the shit out of you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm willing to suffer a blood drawing with a regular needle and no pain medication to save a human life but not much more than that. If I had to inject my heart or reset my broken finger to save our lives I'm sorry man but we're gonna die. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- In the UK, the advice given to first aiders is:
- Rule 1: Only treat if you are willing and able to do so.
- Rule 2: Only treat in the manner in which you have been trained
- Rule 3: Act in the best interest of the casualty.
- Details are here. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I know this doesn't directly address your scenario, but you might find the case of R v Dudley and Stephens to be of interest. The weighty question posed in that famous case was, is necessity a defense to murder? Eliyohub (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a vegetarian, you can have my flesh. No, not today you ghouls! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah Dudley and Stephens. First day of criminal law my 1L year. Not 100% relevant here, though, since we're more talking about tort law than criminal. But the concept of "necessity" is definitely relevant in both. My caveat would be that in most cases, including Dudley, the necessity was a personal one, not a necessity to the alleged "rescue victim".There is also a concept of "wrongful life" (and the related "wrongful birth") in tort law that might also be relevant. Usually it has to do with survivors of abortion or children born with disabilities that a doctor should have detected prior to birth and recommended abortion. I've also heard of weird cases involving fertility treatments (e.g., IVF or artificial insemination) where the provider does something like create a viable fetus with the wrong genetic material (either negligently or intentionally), such that the resultant child should never have been conceived. Very niche area of law, and the principles involved are probably not of general applicability, though I wouldn't be surprised if the groundwork for those cases explores precedent more relevant to this question. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
January 1
Spanish Armada
Who was Philip II of Spain planning to replace Elizabeth I with if he had succeed in his invasion? I think the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age shows his daughter Isabella Clara Eugenia but don’t know how accurate that is. Also by what claim would Isabella have over James of Scotland or one of the female line Tudor nobles for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.38.154 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like the film got it right:
- Without an obvious candidate to put on the throne, a number of alternative aims for the Armada were considered. Eventually, it was decided that Philip would nominate a candidate for the English throne, to be approved by the Pope. Philip likely intended his daughter Isabella for the honour.
- Source: [2]. As for your second question, in 1586 Mary, Queen of Scots (d. 1587), the rightful Queen of England for all who didn't recognise Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn, nominated Philip II as her heir. [3]. --Antiquary (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Philip II had been King of England in a coregency which lapsed on the death of his wife Mary I in 1558. I suppose that is the basis of Mary, Queen of Scots' nomination of Philip.
- Kings & Queens of England: A royal history from Egbert to Elizabeth II says: "Philip believed he had a genuine claim to the English throne, both by descent from John of Gaunt, and as Queen Mary I's husband". Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Military Base Names
All the controversy around renaming bases named for Confederate soldiers had me wondering how many Military installations in the U.S. (or abroad) are named for African-Americans. For some reason despite several Google searches reworded in different ways and a search of Wikipedia, I cannot find the answer. I know there are no bases named after women, but I can't seem to find the answer to the African-American base name question. Can someone help me?Archinco (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Archinco 01/01/21
- How many dead black American generals are there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Benjamin O. Davis Sr. and Benjamin O. Davis Jr. for starters. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Daniel James Jr. too. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
While looking for the answer to my question I found quite a few bases named for soldiers of lower ranks, one was named after a lieutenant who crashed a test plane. So rank or even accomplishment doesn't seem to be a part of the criterium. For your own edification, there have been 90 different African-American soldiers who have received the Medal of Honor (1 received it twice), some people may think one of them might qualify. So, as much as I appreciate your sparkling wit, it really didn't do much to answer my question. It did tell me a little about you though. Thanks for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archinco (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Doubtfull if many on this Desk are unaware of that aspect of history. Note that names people are called to serve associated with are not intended beneficial to either sides usually. [4] -- Askedonty (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The new law (overriding the Trump veto) supposedly requires the renaming of facilities named for Confederates. So that presents an opportunity to correct this possible injustice pointed out by the OP. You could write to your congressman and senators with some suggestions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found that the U.S. Air Force Academy named its previously unnamed airfield after Gen. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. in 2019 (in 2017 West Point named a building after him).[5] His father was the first African-American general and when Benjamin A. Davis graduated West Point, he and his father were the only black infantry officers in the Army. Rmhermen (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
1925 military uniform in file
After a little research, I decided it was likely that File:Walter Beals in Marine Corps dress uniform, ca 1920s (PORTRAITS 1840).jpg depicts Walter B. Beals. The filename identifies his uniform as a Marine Corps one, but his article says he was in the Army, so I requested a rename of the file. Could someone who knows about military uniforms check that this is, in fact, an Army uniform and not a Marine Corps uniform (and perhaps confirm or reject my identification of the individual)? – BMacZero (🗩) 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a portrait of him in army uniform, which looks rather different. --Lambiam 09:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like the dress seen here, which would make it a US Army officer mess dress uniform. --Lambiam 11:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- However, a mess jacket only extends down to the waist (known in the UK as a "bumfreezer"). This is more of a frock coat. I have put a note on the WikiProject Military history talk page requesting some expert advice. Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The photo does not have the resolution I'd like to be absolutely certain but I think it unlikely that is a Marine Corps uniform. Indications (and various "frock coat" and other general statements are undermined by the variety of uniforms in that period, by branch even) are the belt buckle. I know and can find no period in which a Marine buckle did not have some form of the Marine globe and anchor emblem. The Army buckles have the eagle clutching olive branch and arrows in some form. This one, fuzzy as it is enlarged and sharpened, is not a globe and anchor and has the general form of the Army eagle inside and above a wreath. The sleeve insignia looks like infantry. I do not recall any such MC sleeve insignia — and after all, every Marine is a rifleman so there aren't all the "branch insignia. Palmeira (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- PS: If the subject was Army being in a Marine uniform at any time would be exceedingly unlikely if not a punishable offense. So, if the subject was definitely USA and not USMC then any speculation on Marine uniform is pretty much nonsense. Palmeira (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- On the photo (also linked to above) of Lieutenant Colonel Walter Beals in army uniform he is wearing a "Wildcat" patch, which was particular to the 81st Infantry Division. --Lambiam 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Palmeira: Great, thank you for your help. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Doing an image search on "infantry"+"dress uniform" returns thus image with caption "Named 1905 Dated U.S. Army Infantry Lieutenant Dress Uniform" — "The uniform is comprised of the Model 1902 dress frock coat for an Infantry Lieutenant, together with the trousers and a white pique vest. The frock ...". Not only does this look much like the other 1902 Army Artillery Officer dress uniform (the one to the left), but also like the uniform Beals is wearing on the photo labelled as a Marine Corps dress uniform. --Lambiam 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2
After article or article detail from NY Times Machine -- who has access?
I am looking for someone with access to New York Times TimesMachine to grab the detail of what I believe will be an obituary or a news report of death.
- ELISABETH THOMAS, AUTHOR AND PAINTER > June 29, 1955, Page 29 [6]
I'm pretty certain that this person is s:Author:Elizabeth Rebecca Finley / Elisabeth Finley Thomas (Q55222075) who I can trace to NYC in 1953. Someone can either add the information to the enWS author talk page, or contact me by whatever means is more suitable. Thanks to anyone who can help, or point me to someone with access. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Ask at WP:RX to see if any editors have access to that resource. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Yes, I have access. The obit makes mention of "The Paris We Remember," so this is the same person. What information are you looking to add? I can add it, I am just unsure what is valuable to you. Urve (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (typo) Urve (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer Urve, when I went to the directed page they told me that I already could access the article through the Wikipedia Library Card, which I did. The person is probably in need of a WP article, though that isn't my priority at this point. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Done — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
What made the Byzantine Empire much weaker in the 14th century in comparison to the 13th century?
What made the Byzantine Empire much weaker in the 14th century in comparison to the 13th century? Even after the 1204 Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, the various fragments of the Byzantine Empire managed to survive relatively well over the next several decades, even managing to reconquer Constantinople in 1261. However, after the 1280s or so, things really did begin to seriously go downhill for the Byzantine Empire in spite of the fact that this empire was (much?) more united during this time than it was in the several decades after 1204. Why exactly was this the case? Futurist110 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- See Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty. I assume you mean after the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos. The Byzantine lost Anatolia to different Turkish states and later the Ottomans during his successors reigns and they fought numerous civil wars with each other and the Kantakouzenos. They also had to fight with the Serbians and the Crusader states in the Balkans. Michael VIII didn't have a very secure empire either and had to rely on diplomacy to keep things together. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Futurist110 -- In a longer-term perspective it was pretty much a long downhill slide (with temporary fluctuations, of course) after the Battle of Manzikert, which the Byzantine Empire never fully recovered from... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The problem was that the Orthodox Church antagonised the other denominations so much that when the Turks mounted their attack on Constantinople they appealed for aid and received none. 95.145.229.36 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The effects of Manzikert are a bit overstated probably...Myriokephalon 100 years later in 1176 was probably more immediately disastrous. Increased contact with western Europe during the crusades and afterwards didn't help either. I'm not sure how the Greek church was "antagonizing other denominations" but the Latin church was certainly doing everything it could to humiliate the Greeks, knowing full well they'd never actually be able to send any help from the west. Anyway, events in Anatolia are way more important than anything happening in Europe. The Mongols invaded and destroyed the Seljuks, a ton of little "beyliks" sprung up, the Ottomans eventually defeated them all, and the Timurids too. See Rise of the Ottoman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a confluence of factors that led to this. Michael VIII Palaiologos left a relatively strong state, but internally that state was riddled with divisions, from his religious policy (Unionists vs anti-Unionists) to separatist/regionalist/anti-dynastic sentiments (e.g. the pro-Laskarid stance of the Anatolian populations), and was left still facing a multitude of threats. All of this was not insurmountable, but Michael VIII's success depended largely on him being at the helm, constantly manoeuvring between rival powers. His successor, Andronikos II, was much less capable. He allowed the comparative advantages gained with so much difficulty to slip (to the point of disbanding the rebuilt Byzantine fleet), and neglected the Turkish (and especially Ottoman) advance in Anatolia until it was too late to do anything. His one major countermeasure, hiring the Catalan Company, backfired spectacularly. Without him, Byzantium might well have been able to continue its revival, possibly even reaching late Komnenian-era borders by the mid-14th century, including in Anatolia. After Andronikos II, the best that could be hoped for was to be the strongest Balkan state. Andronikos III made a good attempt at it, but that hope in turn was dashed in the civil war of 1341-47: after that, the remaining 'Empire' was too small, too poor, to discontiguous, and the ruling dynasty too fractious for any real chance at a revival. There are a few other factors, of course, such as the Genoese colony at Galata, which siphoned away enormous sums in lost tax revenue from commerce, the constant meddling and attacks of Latin powers (e.g. the Hospitaller conquest of Rhodes), the attacks by the Bulgarians and Serbs, etc. But all of these were more symptoms of the Byzantine decline than causes of it; a strong ruler in command of an empire like that in 1282 could have dealt with them. Constantine ✍ 22:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is baike baidu licensed under "Creative Commons"? Can it be freely copied and distributed? If not, what are the terms of the Baidu copyright? 14.169.211.192 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- According to clause 2.2 of the Baidu Baike User Agreement, the copyright of all content published by Baidu Baike users belongs to the original author. So unless the content creator has specified otherwise, it is not free, except for the usual fair use exceptions in jurisdictions where they apply. --Lambiam 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The copyright of nearly all content on Wikipedia also belongs with the original author, so that's not particularly germane. AFAICT, this includes most of your work, if you intended to give up your copyright (e.g. release it into the public domain) or assign it to someone else, you probably should make a clear statement on your user page. I'll give you though that
theyBaike Baidu don't seem to require that the copyright holder/author licence their copyrighted worked under any sort of free licence, which is a separate issue but seems to be what the author is interested in rather than copyright assignment or release. See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Baidu Baike and our article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 04:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- The copyright of nearly all content on Wikipedia also belongs with the original author, so that's not particularly germane. AFAICT, this includes most of your work, if you intended to give up your copyright (e.g. release it into the public domain) or assign it to someone else, you probably should make a clear statement on your user page. I'll give you though that
"Nordic race"
Regarding the above lemma, I am kindly asking for quick backing here. To be quite honest, my hair really stands on end right now …--Hildeoc (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- To save time, this appears to be a request for intervention in a dispute about whether the navigation template {{Germanic peoples}} belongs in the article Nordic race. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
January 3
Fountain pen ink
It appears that Parker's no longer make red or green Quink. Could anyone recommend a bottled ink suitable for use with Parker's pens? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- You might want to check out the fountain pens subreddit. I think you’d be far more likely to get a lot of varied opinions by asking there. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found The Pen Company. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is quite a price range, with litre prices ranging from $89.00 (Schubert Diamine) to $797.40 (Chiku-rin Iroshizuku). --Lambiam 00:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think many people could work their way through a litre of fountain pen ink in a lifetime. British ink bottles are generally 2 fluid ounces (57 ml), although we used to have ink in gallon cans (160 fl oz) at school for our dip pens, I never remember one running out. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- So a liter is a lot. Prices starting to look more reasonable now. Still I would just use a disposable ballpoint that comes pre-filled in packs of 10 for like a dollar as I have no special hobby of fine pens. Is the pre-fountain pen ink waterless? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's the same ink (actually, our school ink was a bit more watery than the Parker ink, presumably because it was cheaper). Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I get it now, the gallon container was only used to refill smaller ones or someone added water when it felt too evaporated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you fill one of these (an ink well) that fits in one of these (a school desk). A suitably gullible child was given the prestigious title of "ink monitor" and tasked with topping them up from an enormous tin can and then had to explain to their mother why they had ink on their white shirt. Alansplodge (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I may have been born early enough to remember a school desk with inkwell hole in storage in New York City and would've thought it was for a hypothetical thingy for reloading or parking fountain pens. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- They were still in use at my London primary school in the late 1960s, but we were the last to use them. Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I may have been born early enough to remember a school desk with inkwell hole in storage in New York City and would've thought it was for a hypothetical thingy for reloading or parking fountain pens. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you fill one of these (an ink well) that fits in one of these (a school desk). A suitably gullible child was given the prestigious title of "ink monitor" and tasked with topping them up from an enormous tin can and then had to explain to their mother why they had ink on their white shirt. Alansplodge (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I get it now, the gallon container was only used to refill smaller ones or someone added water when it felt too evaporated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's the same ink (actually, our school ink was a bit more watery than the Parker ink, presumably because it was cheaper). Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- So a liter is a lot. Prices starting to look more reasonable now. Still I would just use a disposable ballpoint that comes pre-filled in packs of 10 for like a dollar as I have no special hobby of fine pens. Is the pre-fountain pen ink waterless? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think many people could work their way through a litre of fountain pen ink in a lifetime. British ink bottles are generally 2 fluid ounces (57 ml), although we used to have ink in gallon cans (160 fl oz) at school for our dip pens, I never remember one running out. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I never thought I'd see hipster ink or Gucci ink. But I'm sure it's really good, or at least has some cool facet like containing gold or hand-milked octopus ink. It's $24 an ounce and Japanese so it must be something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is quite a price range, with litre prices ranging from $89.00 (Schubert Diamine) to $797.40 (Chiku-rin Iroshizuku). --Lambiam 00:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found The Pen Company. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
January 4
Klick
I have memories of "klicks" being used as synonym for kilometres or kph in a classic science fiction novel, before (to me) any other context. Any ideas? OED was no help. Doug butler (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think it originated as military slang (see Wiktionary) and from there was borrowed into some military-themed SF... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. A few quick Google searches strongly suggest that Ben Bova, Joe Haldeman and Robert Heinlein all used "klicks" (but I didn't turn up results for Jerry Pournelle).... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there slang for British/US measuring system unit(s)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Like for yards/miles? Not that I know of. As to speed, the best slang dealing with speed I know of is that someone driving 120 mph is "doing a buck twenty" (cf. $1.20). I've not heard the same phrasing with other speeds, and it sounds awkward to my ear with anything less than 110 mph. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- During the 70s and 80s when there was a US national speed limit of 55 miles per hour, someone obeying the law was said to be "doing the double-nickel". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the UK (and likely elsewhere) one might refer to driving (usually a car or motorbike) at 100mph as "doing a ton." "A/the ton" is also informally applied to scores or counts of 100 in other contexts.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- As in the hit skiffle song "In the Summertime": "Scoot along the lane, do a ton or a ton and twenty-five." —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- See also Ton-up Boys. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- As in the hit skiffle song "In the Summertime": "Scoot along the lane, do a ton or a ton and twenty-five." —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the UK (and likely elsewhere) one might refer to driving (usually a car or motorbike) at 100mph as "doing a ton." "A/the ton" is also informally applied to scores or counts of 100 in other contexts.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- During the 70s and 80s when there was a US national speed limit of 55 miles per hour, someone obeying the law was said to be "doing the double-nickel". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Like for yards/miles? Not that I know of. As to speed, the best slang dealing with speed I know of is that someone driving 120 mph is "doing a buck twenty" (cf. $1.20). I've not heard the same phrasing with other speeds, and it sounds awkward to my ear with anything less than 110 mph. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there slang for British/US measuring system unit(s)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. A few quick Google searches strongly suggest that Ben Bova, Joe Haldeman and Robert Heinlein all used "klicks" (but I didn't turn up results for Jerry Pournelle).... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says it was originally US military slang used in the Vietnam War. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Which OED version "was no help"? The OED Online (available to paying users or members of paying instutitions, such as my public library here) defines klick (also click, klik) as "Slang. (Originally U.S. Army.) A kilometre. Also plural (Australian), elliptical for 'kilometres per hour'." It says the etymology is unknown but the word was "Originally used amongst American servicemen during the Vietnam War." Usage examples are cited from 1967 (when it entered the Dictionary of American Slang) to 1988. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- He means that it was no help in identifying the particular use in a science fiction novel that he is trying to remember. --Viennese Waltz 11:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Starship Troopers, 1959? [7][8] Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- In this previous ref-desk thread about the word klicks (there are several such threads), Tamfang cited The Forever War (1974) as an sf novel in which the word is used. Deor (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The "Troopers" "copy" I found is using miles [9], with that noone who'd seem enthusiastic. "It was an endless day" "an impossible decision" "we're wasting our time" "stopping every half mile to listen for frying bacon". --Askedonty (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Furthermore, no uses of "klick" or variants as a noun show up, but merely two uses of the verb "click". --Lambiam 10:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- A good link, thanks Deor. The Forever War could be it. Doug butler (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ethnic groups that achieved ethnogenesis largely or completely as a result of Communist rule?
Which ethnic groups achieved ethnogenesis largely or completely as a result of Communist rule? So far, I could think of:
- Moldovans
- Uyghurs
- Possibly some or all of the Central Asian peoples (there was already a separate Muslim identity among them relative to the Eastern Orthodox Eastern Slavs even before Communism, but it's possible that they would not have identified en masse specifically as Kazakh, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Turkmen, et cetera as opposed to Central Asian in general if it wasn't for decades of Communist rule.)
- Possibly Belarusians
- Macedonians
- Montenegrins
Anyway, though, which additional ethnic groups would actually qualify for this? Futurist110 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd take issue with the Uyghurs on your list. They have been a largely cohesive and identifiable people group for at over a millenium; indeed they are going in the opposite direction due to enforced cultural assimilation with the Han Chinese largely due to the rule of the PRC. The Uyghur Khaganate dates from the 8th century. --Jayron32 13:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- AFAIK, though, the 8th century Uyghurs aren't the same Uyghurs that exist today. Futurist110 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Some Bulgarians and Greeks have elaborate conspiracy theories about how the separate Macedonian ethnolinguistic identity was contrived out of almost nothing for political purposes in the aftermath of WW2 by the Tito regime (and sold to the English-speaking world with the help of Horace Lunt)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. Well, it certainly made sense to discourage Bulgarian territorial claims on Yugoslav territory! Futurist110 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just to note that the natural evolution of ethnic groups (ethnogenesis), if it has happened at any point in history, can happen at any point in history, including the current times, and the spontaneous creation of new ethnic groups is going on, and as such, it is entirely possible for them to have arisen in the past century or so. It isn't necessary for some evil mastermind to have created them for his own nefarious purposes; they can just "happen" through organic and natural social processes, and that applies to Macedonian people as well. --Jayron32 14:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Should seem easy enough to Google public domain Encyclopedia Britannicas and see what they say under Macedonia. I find it funny that a country was delayed from EU etc for quarter century cause fruitless negotiations when the ingenious mutually-crushing defeat breakthrough turned out to be "call north Macedonia North Macedonia". If only all intractable disputes were this easy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- During the inter-war Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they were inhabitants of the Vardar Banovina and subjected to heavy pressures to Serbianize. Probably in 1945, many of them would have considered themselves geographically Macedonian, linguistically Bulgarian (or anyway a lot closer to Bulgarian than Serbian), and nationally Yugoslav, and would not have seen much contradiction in this. It was definitely intervention by Tito's post-war Yugoslav government which built up a distinctively Macedonian literary language which had barely existed before (endorsed in the Western world by noted Old Church Slavonic scholar Horace Lunt), though whether this process was "natural" or "artificial" could be debated at great length (and has been, many times). Either way, the strident nationalism of the 1990s seemed to contain a certain amount of "overcompensation" for the relatively recent origin of their identity. AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, it was pretty interesting to see North Macedonia try claiming Alexander the Great as one of their own. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- What did they consider themselves before Yugoslavia? Or what would they be if suddenly no empire wanted them for some reason (not a leading question, I have no idea) I note that a dialect with its own country is a language but not always, Canadian is not a language. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the pre-WW1 era, ordinary people in the area defined themselves by religion as much or more than by language or ethnicity (see Patriarchate of Karlovci, Bulgarian Exarchate, Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople etc). Look at the "aftermath" section and following sections of the Ilinden Uprising article to see the beginnings of modern nationalism... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
January 5
Ideologies or concepts comparable to Lebensraum?
Which ideologies or concepts were comparable to Lebensraum? I could think of Spazio vitale, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Manifest Destiny, Nam tien, Chuang Guandong, the Russian colonization of Siberia, and the Ostsiedlung, but what else was there? Futurist110 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Among less well-known examples, I could also think of the Great Migrations of the Serbs, Bantu expansion, Oromo migrations, Pashtun colonization of northern Afghanistan, and Out-of-Africa. Futurist110 (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Our article Irredentism describes some related nationalistic movements, with the added element of "we've got to take back what we lost unfairly!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking much more settler colonialism as opposed to irredentism here. Futurist110 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Does American westward expansion qualify? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- As Jayron32 said, I already mentioned it in the form of Manifest Destiny. Futurist110 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The OP does mention it in their list (Manifest Destiny). Controversially, some may consider Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be similar. There's an argument to be made that the concept of a nation as a distinct and inviolate people group with an inviolate right to a specific area of land which has existed since time immemorial to be a peculiar (and yet common) trope of the modern age, but is also not one with much basis in reality. Governments certainly behave and act as though such a thing were so, however people groups, like any sociological concepts, have always been in a constant state of flux and evolution, and they lands they have occupied have always been changing and flowing and intermingling in terms of geography (and culture and biology) with other people groups. Any time spent in the social sciences, especially human geography, sociology, or anthropology would lead one away from the static world of inviolate borders where static cultures have eternal rights to areas of the earth's surface and into a more nuanced and dynamic understanding of human culture and society. --Jayron32 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, Israeli settlements in the West Bank could definitely be viewed as being comparable to Lebensraum. This is especially true if they are meant to relieve overpopulation pressure on (parts of) Israel proper. Futurist110 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would've been better if the actual lebensraum sufferers had a strict enforced ban on any settling whatsoever to make the terrorist orgs prove they're going to murder too many civilians whether Israel settles 1 square inch or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree--even with a complete and total settlement freeze, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad might still decide to murder Israelis just like they did before. It's worth noting, though, that having Israel build settlements near its borders isn't always a bad thing--not for itself, at least. For instance, this allowed Israel to have a much larger Jewish Jerusalem metropolitan area as a result of mass settlement construction in that region. Futurist110 (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I actually personally lived in a East Jerusalem Israeli Jewish settlement during my own childhood--specifically in Pisgat Ze'ev--from around 1998 to March 2001, which is when we moved to the United States. It was a nice place--very large for a settlement--and of course life there would have been nice if it wasn't for the terrorism at the end of this time period, at the start of the Second Intifada. Futurist110 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if crossing the line was better for Israel, Palestinians seem so obsessed with it that it may or may not have been better to just defeat the armies and say stop invading us we'll stay on our side if you stop killing us then wait however long it takes for "enough" to be killed that there's enough world sympathy to get some benefit like a security buffer of x distance past the line. That might've happened long before 2021. Intentionally (statistically) sacrificing your citizens is pretty Machiavellian though. Might even cause an alternate history that averages out to be less deaths than the real 1967-x for high x (who knows) but still. And you would have to be psychic to know in 1967 what the timeline would be if you did that and if you did what really happened. No one even knows the what really happened version of the Bank and Strip even in 2021, today's status quo could not be the final one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- PS, of course you think there's too many excessively nationalistic Israelis. People who willingly volunteer to take the extra risk are likely to be nationalistic (though smaller more isolated settlements further from the border might have even more nationalists and fewer money savers) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- IMHO, the best thing for Israel to do might have been to conquer all of the West Bank or at least the southern half of the West Bank back in 1948-1949 as opposed to waiting until 1967 to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gaza and Golan too? Were there international laws against taking land from people who want an armistice cause they're losing? What if you keep walking to the Jordanian and Egyptian border and only shoot when being shot at but don't accept armistice or surrender offers? Was a snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ala northernmost Korean War possible? I don't know the answers. I'm now imagining a funny cartoon where a line of thousands of soldiers carries a 100 mile long rope by the belt loops and tries to take territory by pushing another line and both sides have their weapons pointed down. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- If Israel could have also conquered Gaza and Golan in that war, then why the Hell not? But I do think that the West Bank has more value due to its larger area. Plus, conquering the Golan Heights in 1967 wasn't too bad since it actually had few remaining Arabs during this time. It was the West Bank and Gaza Strip that had a lot of Arabs in 1967 after Israel conquered these territories. Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- So I assume there's no geopolitical or international law block to taking West Bank and Gaza and Golan in that war instead of what really happened? Weren't wars of aggression banned by that time? How far do you have to repel a war of aggression before it becomes a war of aggression when you're an official UN country with borders and they aren't and they think you're an illegal country and want to push you from the river to the sea? Only a real nationalist could complain they took too much in real life but I don't know the international law minutiae. Or if Israel would be more respected in the international community today if they had done that. It seems realistic but I don't have a crystal ball. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Israel already engaged in conquest in 1948-1949. Its borders in 1949 were significantly larger than those that the 1947 UN Palestine Partition Plan allocated for it. So, I don't think that conquering even more land would have been a particular deal-breaker for the international community back then. If there would have been mass flight of Arabs, then the entire West Bank could have been annexed; if not, then only the southern half of the West Bank, along with East Jerusalem, could have been annexed. Futurist110 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Only a little, that amount seems very fair when they tried to push Israel to the sea the very first minute with no provocation besides being there. And maybe you're right that no one not already fighting would care enough to fight the Holocaust survivors and stuff for fractions of the Mandate if they took all parts of it they could. Without a crystal ball one can only speculate if that would've brought less turmoil in the long run. I say maybe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Israel already engaged in conquest in 1948-1949. Its borders in 1949 were significantly larger than those that the 1947 UN Palestine Partition Plan allocated for it. So, I don't think that conquering even more land would have been a particular deal-breaker for the international community back then. If there would have been mass flight of Arabs, then the entire West Bank could have been annexed; if not, then only the southern half of the West Bank, along with East Jerusalem, could have been annexed. Futurist110 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- So I assume there's no geopolitical or international law block to taking West Bank and Gaza and Golan in that war instead of what really happened? Weren't wars of aggression banned by that time? How far do you have to repel a war of aggression before it becomes a war of aggression when you're an official UN country with borders and they aren't and they think you're an illegal country and want to push you from the river to the sea? Only a real nationalist could complain they took too much in real life but I don't know the international law minutiae. Or if Israel would be more respected in the international community today if they had done that. It seems realistic but I don't have a crystal ball. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- If Israel could have also conquered Gaza and Golan in that war, then why the Hell not? But I do think that the West Bank has more value due to its larger area. Plus, conquering the Golan Heights in 1967 wasn't too bad since it actually had few remaining Arabs during this time. It was the West Bank and Gaza Strip that had a lot of Arabs in 1967 after Israel conquered these territories. Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gaza and Golan too? Were there international laws against taking land from people who want an armistice cause they're losing? What if you keep walking to the Jordanian and Egyptian border and only shoot when being shot at but don't accept armistice or surrender offers? Was a snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ala northernmost Korean War possible? I don't know the answers. I'm now imagining a funny cartoon where a line of thousands of soldiers carries a 100 mile long rope by the belt loops and tries to take territory by pushing another line and both sides have their weapons pointed down. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- IMHO, the best thing for Israel to do might have been to conquer all of the West Bank or at least the southern half of the West Bank back in 1948-1949 as opposed to waiting until 1967 to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I actually personally lived in a East Jerusalem Israeli Jewish settlement during my own childhood--specifically in Pisgat Ze'ev--from around 1998 to March 2001, which is when we moved to the United States. It was a nice place--very large for a settlement--and of course life there would have been nice if it wasn't for the terrorism at the end of this time period, at the start of the Second Intifada. Futurist110 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree--even with a complete and total settlement freeze, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad might still decide to murder Israelis just like they did before. It's worth noting, though, that having Israel build settlements near its borders isn't always a bad thing--not for itself, at least. For instance, this allowed Israel to have a much larger Jewish Jerusalem metropolitan area as a result of mass settlement construction in that region. Futurist110 (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would've been better if the actual lebensraum sufferers had a strict enforced ban on any settling whatsoever to make the terrorist orgs prove they're going to murder too many civilians whether Israel settles 1 square inch or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, Israeli settlements in the West Bank could definitely be viewed as being comparable to Lebensraum. This is especially true if they are meant to relieve overpopulation pressure on (parts of) Israel proper. Futurist110 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Only those who support race-based colonialism and ethnic cleansing consider that view to be controversial. Of 19 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody (besides a few extremists and maybe that racist banned Kach Party) is saying that Israeli citizens who happen to be Palestinian can't stay, some people just think that the Holocaust PTSD victims and their families should get their own antisemitic-murder free zone cause the de jure sovereign gave them half (or half of half?, some say the British Mandate was originally supposed to be 1 entity to divide at the river not 2) and Jews are one of the most racially persecuted people in history, hated even by the white far-right. There are Israeli citizens who are Palestinians (people) who don't want to become Palestinian (country), there are Israeli citizens who are Palestinian who are socially liberal and wear miniskirts and have the same college scholarships they could've gotten if they were Jewish who don't want to live in the Palestinian country(ies). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just curious--do you believe that Israel has the right to criminalize apostasy if (purely hypothetically) doing this ever actually became necessary in order to preserve Israel's Jewish character? Futurist110 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by criminalizing apostasy might one day be needed to preserve Jewish character? If I were Jewish I would be interested in keeping cultural traditions and learning about the religion and believe a few things i.e. "monotheism" and "blooddrinking bad" but treat the religion as merely one of my many hobbies and a fun fiction. Like how people watch movies. I would not want to pay attention to the religious rules, though I wouldn't mind following them a few holidays a year especially if family does or donning the garb and giving moderate effort to not act super-secular without being too fake to touristicate holy places to keep the Orthodox happy or things like that. If I were Arab in an Arab place I would eat so no one can tell A LOT, lol. I do not want to follow Ramadan. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Life is so long I might even read the whole Talmud before I die and I'm not Jewish, from what little I've read the combining of religion and legalism is probably more interesting than either separately. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I mean a hypothetical scenario where criminalizing apostasy is necessary to maintain Israel's Jewish character because a lot of Israeli Jews (purely hypothetically, in my scenario here) want to leave Judaism and join and follow other religions. Futurist110 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's going to happen. If it will it'd have to be too far in the future to care about now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hypothetical scenarios don't have to be realistic. For instance, Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario is certainly EXTREMELY unrealistic! Futurist110 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- What religious distributions do you have in mind and why would those ones be bad for Israel? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Have 15-20% of Israeli Jews convert to Christianity, another 15-20% of Israeli Jews convert to Hinduism, and another 15-20% of Israeli Jews convert to Buddhism. Futurist110 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- That seems benign enough, just ensure the law respects minority rights as much as possible (like a right for Kosher food in school etc) Now Aztec religion, that would be a problem. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Although our human nature tends to focus on the human sacrificial aspects of the complex Aztec religion when it was practiced half a millennium ago, many other religions, including the precursors to Judaism, Roman rites (though they downplayed it), and (allegedly) Druidism (latterly revived) did, or were alleged by others to, have similar practices of human and/or animal sacrifice which were subsequently modified and transformed to more benign forms.
- The Aztec religion was part of a wider spectrum of Mesoamerican religion, which also included the Maya religion that is still widely followed in modernised form: I see no reason why a religion based on Aztec mythology and philosophy, modified and substituting other forms of sacrifice (personal service, donation of wealth, etc.) could not be tolerable today, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it actually exixts on a small scale. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- That seems benign enough, just ensure the law respects minority rights as much as possible (like a right for Kosher food in school etc) Now Aztec religion, that would be a problem. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Have 15-20% of Israeli Jews convert to Christianity, another 15-20% of Israeli Jews convert to Hinduism, and another 15-20% of Israeli Jews convert to Buddhism. Futurist110 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- What religious distributions do you have in mind and why would those ones be bad for Israel? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hypothetical scenarios don't have to be realistic. For instance, Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario is certainly EXTREMELY unrealistic! Futurist110 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's going to happen. If it will it'd have to be too far in the future to care about now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I mean a hypothetical scenario where criminalizing apostasy is necessary to maintain Israel's Jewish character because a lot of Israeli Jews (purely hypothetically, in my scenario here) want to leave Judaism and join and follow other religions. Futurist110 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just curious--do you believe that Israel has the right to criminalize apostasy if (purely hypothetically) doing this ever actually became necessary in order to preserve Israel's Jewish character? Futurist110 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody (besides a few extremists and maybe that racist banned Kach Party) is saying that Israeli citizens who happen to be Palestinian can't stay, some people just think that the Holocaust PTSD victims and their families should get their own antisemitic-murder free zone cause the de jure sovereign gave them half (or half of half?, some say the British Mandate was originally supposed to be 1 entity to divide at the river not 2) and Jews are one of the most racially persecuted people in history, hated even by the white far-right. There are Israeli citizens who are Palestinians (people) who don't want to become Palestinian (country), there are Israeli citizens who are Palestinian who are socially liberal and wear miniskirts and have the same college scholarships they could've gotten if they were Jewish who don't want to live in the Palestinian country(ies). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Does American westward expansion qualify? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking much more settler colonialism as opposed to irredentism here. Futurist110 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Our article Irredentism describes some related nationalistic movements, with the added element of "we've got to take back what we lost unfairly!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Nur Sultan/Nur Soltan
Is Nur Soltan wife of Meñli I Giray and Nur Sultan wife of Xälil and Ibrahim Khans the same? If so, both have different fathers mentioned. Check pages: Ghabdellatif and Meñli I Giray.
On the Kazan pages, she is of Nogai ancestry (daughter of Nogai Timur). On Crimean pages, she is (daughter of Prince Timur ibn Mansur, bey of the Manghits). Al-khataei (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The name Nursultan, and variations, appears to be common in a number of Central Asian languages and dialects. It is very likely those are two different women; indeed if they have different parentage listed on the Wikipedia pages, I would take that as evidence they are not the same woman. --Jayron32 13:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- However, the page Ghabdellatif mentions her of marrying Meñli I GirayAl-khataei (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Al-khataei, if I'm understanding the question: Per the Xälil of Kazan article: “The young Khan [i.e., Xalil] was married to the daughter of Nogai Timur, Nur-Sultan who was from the Nogais. The marriage ended without an heir because Xälil died the following year. After his death in 1467, Nur-Sultan married Xälil's younger brother and heir Ibrahim. She gave birth to Ibrahim's sons and future Khans: Möxämmädämin and Ghabdellatif. After Ibrahim died in 1479, Nur-Sultan married the Crimean Khan Meñli I Giray, her third husband.” (no citation given).
- Per the Meñli I Giray article: “Meñli's wives were: (1) Nur Sultan, daughter of Prince Timur ibn Mansur, bey of the Manghits” (cited to Ilya V. Zaytsev, The Structure of the Giray Dynasty (15th-16th centuries): Matrimonial and Kinship Relations of the Crimean Khans in Elena Vladimirovna Boĭkova, R. B. Rybakov (ed.), Kinship in the Altaic World: Proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Moscow 10–15 July 2005, p.341-2).
- Therefore we're comparing an uncited assertion that Nur Sultan’s father was Nogai Timur, versus a cited assertion that her father was Timur Ibn Mansur, bey of the Manghits. Per the Manghud article, Nogai and Manghit refer to the same nation, so one possibility is that we are just looking at two different ways of expressing the name of Nur Sultan's father Timur. But in conclusion, more references are what you need to decide? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The article Meñli I Giray gives the name of his wife as "Nur Sultan"; the article Xälil of Kazan mentions that his spouse Nur Sultan, after his and his brother Ibrahim of Kazan's deaths, married Meñli I Giray. Thus, there can be little doubt that this is the same person. In the appellation "Nogai Timur" used on page Xälil of Kazan, I think that "Nogai" is not part of the name, but merely an ethnic indication: Timur, the Nogai khan. I have no reason to think that this is meant to refer to another individual than Timur, son of Mansur, the Mangıt bey, but I can find no clear information on any Nogai or Mangıt rulers named Timur or Mansur in the relevant time period. --Lambiam 08:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Manghud mentions Timur Malik, but he's 200 years older than the time period we're talking about. Nogai Horde mentions a Timur Khan Nogay, though there's no article about him, he is of the right age. He's not mentioned at Taimur (disambiguation) which seems to have articles on several other people with the name, though none of the correct time period. The one at Nogai Horde is possibly the right person, but I can't find much more. --Jayron32 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
January 6
Kalmyk separatism
Have the Kalmyks ever expressed any separatist sentiments? Futurist110 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Check out Deportation of the Kalmyks#Background. More recently, there were news about Kalmyks angry at use of their republic to bolster Donbas separatism. Brandmeistertalk 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I need to find 11,700 more votes
or however many it was. But I'm missing a certain part of that: say the Georgia Sec. of State actually finds those votes, so Trump wins Georgia. He is still behind in the EV, right? Does that mean he has to make similar phone calls to at least 2 more states, to win the EV? Of course that assumes Biden doesn't also make phone calls, and that there are no large states close enough to flip. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're crediting Trump with more of a strategic plan than he in fact has. He's flailing around desperately, and his vanity is stung by the idea that he's the first GOP presidential candidate in almost 30 years to lose Georgia. Biden is not making such calls, not only because they're unprecedented and highly unethical (arguably illegal), but also because he has no need to (he won). AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Or any plan at all. I will concede (as should he) that the Orange Buffoon has shown that there is voter fraud afoot, even if he had to "self-fulfill" it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, Donald Trump is playing 666-dimensional chess! What else is new? ;) Futurist110 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The point is not to win this election, the point is to win other elections; Georgia, for example, had two runoff elections the same week as Trump's inopportune phone call, and there will be further elections in 2022 (for Senate and House of Representatives seats) and 2024 (for President and Senate and House of Representatives seats) and the strategy being employed is to assure that enough of Trumps support remains energized for those elections. Winning the recently decided election is not the only part of this strategy; there is also being disruptive to the democratic process in general and casting doubts on the legitimacy of the entire system; it is a long-term strategy that Trump and his allies started a while back as winning an election by having better ideas and getting more votes seems to be less and less a viable strategy for them, so they're trying disruption instead. See [10] and [11] and [12] for example. --Jayron32 11:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
How mountaineers avoid sinking into deep snow covers?
Particularly on mountain peaks, including Everest where the snow cover is about 3 meters deep? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not all snow is of identical density; the amount of "packing" can vary a lot from place to place. Snow can certainly be hard enough to support humans, and even vehicles, as is common in Antarctica. See Classifications of snow for various ways snow can be classified, but the simple answer is that there are plenty of places where snow is densely packed enough to support a human walking on it. --Jayron32 11:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- For some types of snow they can use snowshoes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
: There is also a matter of moisture: Mt Everest is probably pretty dry, given the altitude. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Where was this arrest image from?
Does anyone here happen to know where this image (mildly NSFW) of what seems to be a naked arrest of a man came from? Since reverse image searches turn up nothing, it might be from a video. If there are other places I could ask about this, please also let me know. StellarHalo (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Treason law in the USA
18 U.S. Code § 2381 says "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States". Our article Treason laws in the United States says "Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow of the government or to resist its laws", but this sentence is not referenced. Is it correct? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
not entirely helpful |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I see from Article Three of the United States Constitution that the Supreme Court has ruled "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war", which seems to me to be what the original article I referred to meant. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I linked it earlier, which you then boxed up. But as long as you understand it now, you're good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Contact between Siberian and American peoples post-migration
My understanding is that according to the land bridge theory, around 70 individuals migrated from Siberia to the Americas across the isthmus in what is now the Bering Strait, and that the indigenous peoples of the latter (with the exception of the Eskimo-Aleut and Athabaskan peoples) descend from them, with no contact between the people of Siberia and America after the land bridge receded.
But as demonstrated by the Austronesian expansion, humans clearly became capable at some point in ancient times of traversing significant distances by sea, and even in the case of Northeast Asia, the fact that the Ainu were able to colonise the Kuril Islands suggests that they, too, had an idea of how to cross the seas in that region.
My question, then, is why did the presence of a water body permanently halt contact between the two groups; in other words, why did groups like the Chukchi, Nivkh, Ainu, etc. never try to cross the Bering Sea, in which process they would have inevitably run into their distant relatives across the water?
Hope my question makes sense, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
January 7
Why are there hymns but not hers
Sounds kind of sexist to me. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)