Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Sprache
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 31

Sarmentitii

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmentitii - does English Wikipedia have an article about this? There's none under the exact title and there's no interwiki from the German article, but maybe there is an alternate spelling that I didn't find with a minute or so of searching. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

These may help: Death_by_burning#Ancient_Rome and tunica molesta. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Zomg, so that's what it was about :(. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

1945 UK General Election

How did Churchill react to his defeat in the 1945 United Kingdom general election. Did it come as a surprise to him that the country had rejected the man who had led them to victory in the Second World War. Was he disappointed, or did he view the country as ungrateful, or did he accept the defeat with good grace? He seemed like the sort of character who had a strong ego, and that this defeat would have dealt it quite a harsh blow, but that's just speculation on my part. --Andrew 14:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There's some information, with references for further reading should you wish to follow up for more details, at Winston Churchill#In opposition: 1945–1951 and Later life of Winston Churchill. As a note, both articles seem to imply that voters seemed to have liked Churchill but disliked the Tories, and some may have mistakenly believed that he could stay in office even if his party was defeated; after all there had been coalition/national Governments since 1931, and had minority governments for years before that (see National Government (United Kingdom), Churchill war ministry for examples. Perhaps the people had grown used to this; for example Ramsay MacDonald had repeatedly led governments for which his party did not have a majority, and by the 1930s, Britain had moved into a period where party loyalty became weak; the National Governments of the period often had a mix of Labour, Liberal, and Conservative ministers, etc. Hell, MacDonald, originally a Labour Party member (though they expelled him) led a government during a Parliament when the Conservatives held 518 seats. However, the governments of the 30s and 40s were a response to a series of crises, being in turn the Great Depression and the Second World War. By 1945, the sense was that the UK would be returning to business as usual, and strong party politics would return. The days of Labour and Conservatives getting along to move the country ahead were over. The 1945 campaign was particularly bitter; Churchill himself made a bit of a fool of himself by trying to compare Labour to the Gestapo and accused Attlee of trying to set up a Nazi-style dictatorship if he were to win. --Jayron32 15:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"I must confess I found the event of last Thursday rather odd and queer, especially after all the wonderful welcomes I had from all classes. There was something pent-up in the British people after twenty years which required relief... We must expect great changes which will be hard for the departing generation to adapt themselves to." (29 July 1945, Churchill to Conservative peer Lord Qickswood who had been his best man). See Winston S. Churchill: Never Despair, 1945–1965 by Martin Gilbert (Ch. 6) which has a lengthy Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As a reminder for those less familiar with the British parliamentary system and more used to Presidential elections, there was no direct vote for the post of Prime Minister itself, and Churchill personally was re-elected as Member of Parliament for his constituency, remaining influential nationally and internationally as the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition for six years before commencing his second term as Prime Minister in 1951. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

While that is true, people's votes in the UK have multiple influences: While people may vote, in part, for the specific person they want to represent their local constituency, they are ALSO deeply aware of the importance of which party has control of Parliament and who would be Prime Minister upon the conclusion of the election should their party win, and many voters weigh that rather heavily when deciding who to vote for. A vote for your local candidate is also a vote for the leader of their party as Prime Minister. --Jayron32 18:02, 31 October 201)9 (UTC)

2.122.179.237 -- Don't want to be annoyingly nitpicking, but it would have been "Leader of His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A fair point: I copied the Article title without thinking enough about it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, but I bet someone changes it back. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparisons could be drawn with the landslide defeat of Herbert Hoover to FDR in 1932. Hoover's approach to "wait for the market to right itself" during the Great Depression was not appreciated by those living in poverty. Similarly, the post-war shortages in the UK would likely need more than just waiting for the markets to right themselves, at least if relief was expected anytime soon. So, Churchill's defeat was due to the economic policies of the Conservatives, not anything against him personally. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

See also BBC History - Why Churchill Lost in 1945 for a brief overview. The voters saw the Conservatives as a return to the pre-war muddle, while Labour held out the prospect of real social reform, which by and large was achieved. People wanted a change. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Churchill was salty about it in Triumph and Tragedy, the last volume of his WW2 history book series. It's been ages since I read that thing though, so I don't remember any particulars. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ticker tape transmitter wanted

"Hello? Warsaw Museum of Technology? How much you want for your Siemens & Halske?"

I would like to find a ticker tape transmitter to purchase as a fundraiser goal for a local nonprofit museum open to the public, ideally from a private collection but possibly from another museum. Our donor pool is enormously wealthy to be completely honest, but I understand these items are extraordinarily hard to come by (e.g. because the museum in question would certainly already have one if they could -- they have multiple ticker tape printers in their collection.)

Do auction houses or some such help with these sorts of quests? How do I find a broker for tech antiques? Is it appropriate to ask another museum how much they would be willing to part with theirs? Are there mailing lists for antique finders? Is a 5-10% finders fee reasonable in this space? Any help is most appreciated.

If we get a choice, Royal Earl House's second printing telegraph of 1849 (shown as #33, "House's Type Printing Telegraph 1849" here) would be our first choice, but honestly anything with a piano-style keyboard used to send to a printer over telegraph wires will fit the bill. Fundraiser Throwaway (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I would expect that any auction-house would put a notice online that Google would find. However, at any given time it's unlikely one will be on offer, so you would need to be patient and repeat the Google search often. Or, you might find one in a collection that isn't currently for sale, and make them an offer. Also, if the original is prohibitively expensive, you might commission the production of a replica (either functional or purely decorative). SinisterLefty (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ticker printers are easier to find than transmitters but these sources may help: [1][2] . The Wikipedia article is Ticker tape. DroneB (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Brokers specialized with such antiques do exist: here such broker, Germany. There they have many things and early type writers, with price-tags ranging well from anything to what would be that of a House's Type '1849 (which is doubtful they have but keyboard printing telegraphs are much less rare). --Askedonty (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

November 3

Existence of nations before 18th century?

Do nations as category as we know them today exist before the rise of nationalism and national revival in the late 18th century? For examples, did ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chineses each have their own respective shared unified national identity regardless of their socio-economic statuses? Or are nations just made-up imagined category arbitrarily created by elites or other groups for their own purposes? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Nation, which you have probably already read, touches somewhat on these matters without providing a completely clear-cut answer, and has various links for further exploration. Of course, the World is a big place and History has a large span, so it is quite possible that similar concepts may have arisen and vanished several times in several different places and eras before becoming almost ubiquitous in modern times. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The Romans certainly had the concept of Roman citizenship, which conferred special privileges and obligations, and theoretically gave you the right to participate in Roman government (though you had to be physically present in Rome to exercise such rights, and they became fairly irrelevant under the Empire -- see Roman assemblies). Greeks as a whole were rarely politically united, but each individual city-state or polis had a strong political identity. AnonMoos (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks did unite against common enemies, such as the Persians. SinisterLefty (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

United in a military sense, not merging independent political units into a larger one. AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

England could be described as a “nation“ before the seventeenth century (Certainly by the end of the Hundred Years War). Being on an island helps. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: see The Hundred Years War and the ‘Creation’ of National Identity and the Written English Vernacular: A Reassessment which says: "The so-called ‘Hundred Years War’ and the creation of both English and French nationhood have been inextricably bound together in the historical imaginations of modern historians". Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The kingdom of Hungary was acknowledged as "a nation [hitherto] still unknown to us" by Pope Sylvester around 1000 AD, see Apostolic Majesty#First creation. DroneB (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Although the pope probably didn’t speak modern English in 1000 AD. I’m assuming this is one of those semi-translation errors, from Latin natio, which much rather means "a people". Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 17:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In the late middle ages and Renaissance, a very prominent use of the word natio was to refer to students of a similar ethnic or geographical background at a university -- see Nation (university) -- but this has very little to do with the modern meaning of "nation"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The Declaration_of_Arbroath (1320) is argued by some to be evidence of a sense of Scottish nationhood in the 14th century. Iapetus (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Isaac Watts

Hello! We visited Newington Green,London, to see where our ancestors worked and lived in the British Enlightenment. One thing we didn't see was the W supposedly at one corner of the Green that is in memory of Isaac Watts. I also didn't see it listed in the Wikipedia article on Watts and if found, could be added to the site. We did tour the oldest terraces, New Unity Church and other sites in the area where Dr. Richard Price and his nephews William Morgan and George Cadogan Morgan lived and worked. We were happy to see new projects especially for Mary Wollstonecraft. There is much going on in the area. Our local guide also edits Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. 2600:1702:1C0:B8F0:E416:6ED:3088:CFF1 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm glad you enjoyed your visit. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit: as long as you have a reliable published source, you are welcome to add the information to the article yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The "W" at Newington Green is mentioned in: The life & strange surprising adventures of Daniel Defoe (p. 9): "There is still in Newington Green today a terrace of houses dating back to the 1650s, as well as a wrought-iron gate with the monogram 'W', marking the site of the house of the Nonconformist hymn-writer Isaac Watts".

However, Historic England in its official listing says: "Frame and gate spanned by filigree pediment, ogival in outline, at the centre of which the initial "H" in an armorial shield. This may refer to Richard Heard, a London butcher who owned much of the area north of the Green at the close of the C16". There's a little photo at the very bottom of the page and it does look more like an "H" than a "W". Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's another view of that gate in Google Street View imagery; it's just slightly northwest of Newington Green itself. I certainly can't tell if it's meant to be an H or a W. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November 4

Metropolitan France & French Algeria

So, just making sure that I am actually right, French Algeria had never been legally part of Metropolitan France as it was always a colony and ended its existence as an oversea department, correct? I am asking this because some people discussing the Catalan independence movement and the Irish independence conflict seem to think that Algeria was considered an integral part of France and that its independence violated the first line of the French constitution saying that "France is one and indivisible". 70.95.44.93 (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As you see at the article you linked, "Metropolitan France" is a geographical term: the part of France that's in Europe. Overseas departments are also part of France. If you're American, Metropolitan France is like the 48 contiguous states and the overseas departments are like Alaska and Hawaii. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Article 1 of the French Constitution does say that France is indivisible, but Article 53 allows for treaties that cede territory, provided that there is consent from the people involved. I rather think that if a constitutional court was required to rule on this, they would say that a treaty granting independence to an overseas department, and complying with the terms of article 53 does not violate article 1. Whether this ever actually was tested in court I don't know. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the French constitution, it is important to note that the current French constitution, the Fifth Republic, post-dates the Algerian Crisis, indeed the Algerian Crisis was the thing which brought about the end of the Fourth French Republic. --Jayron32 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It was adopted in 1958—during the crisis and well before Algeria was made independent. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See also this recent query: 2019 March 25#Were Algerians able to freely move to European France before 1962?. Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

An important thing to remember about French Algeria, is that there was always a two- (or even three-) tiered class system there that existed regardless of the actual legal status of Algeria and its incorporation into the French state. There was a famous quote that said "L'Algerie, c'est la France" or "Algeria is France", implying the full incorporation of Algeria with the rest of France, but the residents of Algeria were afforded very different levels of rights depending on whether they were native Algerian (Berber, Tuareg, Arabic, etc.) people OR if they were pied noirs, OR if they were born in Metropolitan France. Generally, people of White European descent had better freedom of movement, and were usually considered full citizens of France, while those that were of non-European descent were not granted such rights. The article Indigénat would be most informative for this discussion. --Jayron32 13:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Which led to some rather indignant indigénats. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The French actually prided themselves on not doing things solely on a crude racial basis -- but to get the full rights of French citizenship, a non-European had to visibly adopt French culture, and persuade the French that he was doing so. See Assimilation (French colonialism) and Évolué. Algerian Jews followed that path, but few Muslims were willing or able to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It was a bit of false pride, however. They policy in practice was "You can be a French citizen, so long as you abandon all of the things that make you different from us". That's bigotry anyway you slice it. They set up a series of rules designed to specifically exclude undesirables based on their ethnic/cultural heritage, and then applied those selectively against those specific ethnic/cultural groups they didn't want to change their pure country. To say it wasn't done on a crude racial basis, I assume you mean "just based on skin tone", which may be true, but there are LOTS of ways to be a bigot that do not strictly include skin tone. --Jayron32 13:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

However, some degree of assimilation is going to be required by any society. For example, a ban on honor killings. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Being expected to follow local laws regarding murder are distinctly different from requiring people to abandon core religious tenets or other cultural practices. That's a red herring to our discussion here, which is that the French essentially required a person to abandon all meaningful aspects of their earlier culture, not just the blatantly abhorrent ones. Requiring people to not murder others with impunity is not the same as requiring them to stop being halal, or to speak a different language at home, or stop teaching their cultural stories to their children. --Jayron32 19:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I never said it was the same. Forbidding women to cover their faces entirely while in public (which makes identification impossible) would be the next step towards the gray area. But, I can also see the point that allowing people to set up their own city (or part of a city) in your country, where they speak only their own language, and thus essentially exclude the locals, is more like them setting up a colony in the nation than joining it. I can see why, at the very least, they might require signs to also display the national language. In Quebec, where they weren't happy about being "colonized" by anglophones, they passed such a law. Of course, when the people making the laws are the colonizers, then, by the same token, they should largely leave the locals alone, with a few exceptions like honor killings. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not a grey area. Unless the authorities are directly charging you with a crime, there's no requirement that you be identifiable without asking. If they want to know your name, they can ask you. If they want to know who you are, they can ask you to produce an ID card or something. You don't need to be able to be identifiable, however, if you're just going about your daily business doing nothing wrong. --Jayron32 20:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This is going to depend a lot on the jurisdiction, but in many places where they are putting in street cameras linked to facial recognition systems, they're going to have an issue with people going around with their faces hidden. It's gray in that it has to balance public safety with Freedom of Religion and privacy. But when the authorities definitely need to identify people, say at a border crossing, then keeping a veil on is not going to be allowed, in most places. Those that allow it have basically surrendered control of the border, as then anyone can cross with a burka on (men included). SinisterLefty (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

They are doing so. Whether the fact that they are doing so means that it is right and just that they can track and monitor every person as a matter of course, without regard for first establishing reasonable suspicion that the person has broken a law, is a different issue. The ability to catch people who have done nasty things is useful; more problematic is the ability to track people who haven't done anything wrong, in case you want to decide later that you don't like them, and create crimes to charge them with. Requiring that people accept a government's unjust and unwarranted invasion of their privacy is not a just position. --Jayron32 17:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As stated above, Algeria was part of France. It was NOT a colony the way of, say, Madagascar or Vietnam. The law of the land, and the organisation of the administration, were the same law as in, say, Paris, while in a colony the law and organisation were different. However, there were two class of inhabitants: citizens, and "indigenes". Indigenes could become citizens if they so wished, but this meant their losing a number of specifics, and doing this required breaking free of social rules, for few actual benefits (racism was real, and the person would still be considered indigene by citizens, while indigenes would consider him a kind of traitor); few did it (but just follow the article Indigénat provided by Jayron32).

"France is one and indivisible" is just a constitutional rule, it can be overruled by just another constitutional rule. Which has just be done quite recently about New Caledonia (whether the Nouméa Accord process will or will not result in independence, the simple fact that independence is possible already broke the rule of indivisibility). It can also be broken de facto, which is actually the normal way as constitutions go.

Gem fr (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

1951 French legislative election in Algeria describes the way in which Algerians participated in elections for the French National Assembly by means of electoral colleges, separate ones for Europeans, non-European citizens and non-citizens. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

the way you write it implies 3 colleges, when there were 2: one college for citizens (from whatever ancestry), and a second for ″indigenes″ (non citizens). Gem fr (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite right, there were only two, my apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Mark Twain

Were any of Mark Twain's speeches ever recorded and if so, are these in the public domain and if so, where can i find them. Please and thank you. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Searching for "Mark Twain cylinder" turns up a number of leads. He apparently made several recordings, but very few survive... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Library of Congress says that "Mark Twain was known to have made recordings on three occasions; unfortunately none of them are known to have survived". A recording which was previously thought to be of Twain turned out to be a friend of his impersonating him. See Mark Twain Sort of Speaks to Us October 30, 2014 by Bryan Cornell. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you perhaps direct me toward transcripts of his speeches? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at my link? The only text mentioned is The American Claimant which you can read in full here. Twain recorded some portions of the book in 1891, using it as a sort of dictation machine rather than for publication.

This article says that the 1888 recording mentioned by the Library of Congress never actually existed since Thomas Edison was out when Twin visited his laboratory; however he had intended to dictate passages of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, which you can read here. The final recording was "made by Gianni Bettini in 1893, in which Twain interrupted Nellie Melba’s rendition of Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor".  :::Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Or if I have misread your question, apologies and see Mark Twain's Speeches. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively LibriVox recording of Mark Twain's Speeches by Mark Twain. Read in English by John Greenman. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What other languages did Twain write in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

German.—eric 18:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if there was a recording I'm am of a generation who would hear this man's voice instead :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

November 5

Death related questions

I have several related questions, the first is that I have been told that when a person dies, their watch stops. So, my first question is, is this true? Secondly if this is true, does this apply to analogue watches only or does this include digital watches. My next question and the overarching most important piece of information I would like to know is if one is listening to music, such as on an iPod (outdated now I know) or an old Diskman or even an old Walkman, or even the new more modern devices, will these also stop when one expires. Why do these occurrences take place? Does your smart phones stop working? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Watches (or other devices) stopping after death is a myth, though a google search shows it's a commonly believed one. For old analogue watches this was sometimes true in the case of violent deaths, such as accidents or fights, where a broken watch could sometimes jam the hands at the current time. Also in the days of wind-up watches, where most had to be would daily, a mechanical watch with a date function could indicate the approximate date of death when remains were found after a a considerable time. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It could be a legend started from a past frequent wished-it-was-so. If you were to come upon a person lying on the ground and you would first check their wrist in order to find their pulse, it was much better that this wrist was without a watch ticking, for your later memories if that person could not have been revived. Clocks can be a very obsessive detail in association with something turned into failing. --Askedonty (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There could be many reasons why a wind-up watch would stop around the time of death:

1. The damage caused to the watch, as mentioned above, by a violent death. This would indicate the exact time of death.

2. There could be a cause subsequent to the death, like a fire if they dropped their cigarette, or a car accident if they were driving at the time, which stops the watch. This watch would indicate a time slightly after the death.

3. The watch could just run down, with nobody to wind it. It wouldn't indicate the exact time of death, in this case.

4. If the person died of disease, then they may have been sick before dying, and have not been able to wind their watch. Again, it wouldn't indicate the exact time of death in this case.

So, for all these reasons, finding a dead person with a stopped wind-up watch would have been fairly common, hence the myth. As for digital watches or other electronic devices, these are less likely to stop, because they run much longer before the battery dies, and, if they do stop, they typically don't show the time they stopped, even if a new battery is inserted. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that the legend/myth goes beyond the physical damage to watches. There are a lot of references to clocks stopping, as exemplified in My Grandfather's Clock. Conversely it was supposed to bring bring bad luck if you didn't stop a clock when someone died. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need a separate Tall Tales ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Say, a cheap wind-up watch would often have lasted not much more than one year before the spring became unsuitable. Before the second half of that period you would already have been winding it (up?) more than once a day. --Askedonty (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Anecdote time: My analogue watch stopped at the moment my Dad passed away in 1994. He was 2 hours drive away from me, and my watch did not have a history of stopping at random times. I wasn't told he'd died till about 20 minutes later. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jack! It is exactly to this, as of yet unexplained by science, incident to which I was referring. Some may term this supernatural, a term I disagree with. It is a known phenomena, which has not yet been fully explained by science. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

See confirmation bias. SinisterLefty (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In line with above link, consider how many people who die wear a watch, or have friends or relatives who wear a watch, or die in proximity to a clock... so basically everyone. Clocks and watches can stop. It is simply inevitable, given the number of people and the number of watches, that out of all the billions of people who have ever died, a not-insignificant number of them will have died around the same time that a nearby time-keeping device stopped working. Demanding an explanation for a coincidence is profoundly unscientific when there is no evidence to suggest it is more than that. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that's just if there is no correlation. But I listed several ways they might correlate, in the form of death causing the watch to stop (such as a fire caused by a cigarette in the dead man's mouth) or an event causing both death and the watch to stop (like illness, preventing winding of the watch prior to death). Rarely does the watch stopping cause death, but I suppose they might forget to take their critical meds if the watch alarm doesn't go off, because the watch had stopped. SinisterLefty (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In one of the Marx Brothers movies, Groucho is a horse doctor pretending to be a human doctor. He holds someone's wrist to take a pulse while looking at his watch. A few seconds go by, and then he says, "Either this man is dead, or my watch has stopped." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Teachers statistics

For an article in the German WP, I am researching facts about teachers' education in the U.S. Unfortunately I seem not to be able to find an absolute number of (undergraduate) college students who either graduate every year to become teachers or who successfully are being licensed or certified to work as teachers. A number for a more recent year would be ideal, but I take anything. Can anybody help and possibly give a link to a website that I must have overlooked? Thanks a lot in advance, --Stilfehler (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that teacher certification is handled at the State level... and that each State has different criteria for teacher training? There is no uniform system in the US, and so the statistics you are looking for may not exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I know. I found that there are some US-wide statistics (overall numbers of teachers, age, etc.) and that there are statistics of new students who enroll for law school, nationwide (law school is a state thing as well), so I was dreaming of somebody counting future resp. new teachers, too... :-) --Stilfehler (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a shit-ton of statistics tables here to click through. That website may also have additional pages that have the data you are looking for. I would start there for your research. --Jayron32 17:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will check that out! --Stilfehler (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

defying a subpoena

If I receive a subpoena and ignore it or defy it, I will get arrested and charged. No one is supposed to be above the law. Why do those who blatantly defy the subpoenas to testify re: the impeachment not get arrested and charged? I would think that doing so would be a very powerful statement to the public at large that it is a fact that no one is above the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.104.13 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See (US) contempt of Congress. It's rare that it ever gets to the stage of imprisonment, however. Also, as a practical matter, if the person flees Washington DC (or were never there to begin with), they may be difficult to capture. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind Richard Nixon's belief that "If the president does it, it's not a crime" - and, by extension, anyone who is following his orders. As to the various defiances, every time they do that, it's just another item on the "Obstruction of Justice" checklist, which is getting pretty lengthy by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, also keep in mind that there is often some time between defying a subpoena and the due process necessary to charge and process someone with contempt. The rule of law still applies to people who ignore subpoenas, and it takes time for them to be charged with and processed for contempt charges (either of court or of Congress). Given that, the OP's presumption that nothing will happen to people who have defied the recent Congressional subpoena is an open question. It's literally things that have happened over the last few days, there are literally court cases right now which have been filed and which are currently deliberating over what to do in these cases. The OP needs to understand that in a civilized society, we don't just drag people behind the shed and take care of them, there is due process and due process takes time. The reason "why has nothing been done" is "because there hasn't been enough time for anyone to do anything yet". Let it work itself out before asking your questions about it. We're still in the midst of it. --Jayron32 17:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As we've seen with Trump's many executive orders (or Obama's, for that matter), legal challenges put up roadblocks, and with the various legal arguing on both sides, his term might be over before a lot of things are decided. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, at some point "justice delayed = justice denied". SinisterLefty (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As is justice rushed. --Jayron32 12:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, you can challenge a judicial subpoena in court, though it is true that if you lose all your challenges you will eventually face penalties if you don't comply. As the Contempt of Congress article discusses, Congressional subpoenas are a rather different beast, and also I think the Trump Administration is claiming executive privilege, which itself is fairly nebulous. The best way to think about this is as a conflict between the executive and legislature. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The US constitution envisions a system of checks and balances, and checking the powers of other branches requires knowledge of what they are doing, hence the use of subpoenas by the legislative branch against the executive branch. The reverse, investigations by the executive branch of the legislative branch, say for taking bribes, would be performed by the FBI or other executive departments, which could use the normal courts to obtain subpoenas. SinisterLefty (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

One of G. Gordon Liddy's applause lines in his post-prison speaking career was that he was convicted of contempt of congress, but that it was ok since he was actually guilty of that: "I really do have contempt for Congress" (audience applauds). 173.228.123.207 (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Contempt for the rule of law, actually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Jayron. It was just a simple question. As I don't fully understand the intricacies of politics, it seems lengthy so I asked a question. 142.46.150.122 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple: one of the main reasons why they have not been arrested and charged with contempt, as yet, is that the legal proceedings which would generate a charge of contempt have not happened yet. When you asked your question, not enough time had passed for such proceedings to occur. The implication that there would be no consequences is an impossible conclusion to reach in such a short period of time. There very well may be consequences; but to conclude that the consequences have not happened within a few hours or a day or so after the event is a a bit unreasonable. I also noted, as a side note, that the matter is already before a court of law, see here. You're asking for answer to questions where the matters are still active and have not yet been resolved. Give it a little time. --Jayron32 18:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

USS John C. Stennis

How did such a prestigious ship (commissioned on 9 December 1995) come to be named after "an ardent segregationist and opponent of most civil rights legislation in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s", given the multicultural nature of the modern USA? Ericoides (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So what!? Maybe in 10 years they name one after Trump. In the US political correctness is not as important as sticking to some "tradition" or worldview, for a big part of society. Remember, nearly 40% of the US population still believes in Creationism. --Kharon (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Because there were a lot of other aspects to Stennis. And because he'd died the year it was commissioned. And because Stennis was known the "Father of America's modern navy." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Congress passed a law urging the navy to do so, and Ronald Reagan and Secretary William L. Ball[3] made the decision. Google for "The father of America's modern Navy."—eric 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There was even a nuclear submarine named USS Robert E. Lee--do the math. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The maths doesn't look great, thanks. Ericoides (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A wise person once said "America is so racist, that any criticism of racism is automatically taken as a criticism of America itself". --Jayron32 13:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Groucho Marx? Gem fr (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In the UK, the Royal Navy generally avoids naming ships after politicians, the only exceptions I can think of are HMS Churchill and HMS Iron Duke (named after the Duke of Wellington, a brilliant general but a terrible prime minister). Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

November 6

Verify statement about 16th century Scots law case

High treason in the United Kingdom#Trial says:

In 1540, a Scottish court summoned Robert Leslie, who was deceased, for a trial for treason. The Estates-General declared the summons lawful; Leslie's body was exhumed, and his bones were presented at the bar of the court.

No citation is given. May I request one? 79.180.57.119 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently goes back to the Encyclopædia Britannica 1904, although there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence of it actually happening [4]. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 17:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Surely Encyclopædia Britannica is a valid and credible source? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If it contradicts historical record without giving a source? I don’t think so. It’s certainly not enough to state this as fact. We could say something like "according to Encyclopædia Brit., Leslie was …". Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 19:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A skeptical reference, based also on the Enc.Brit. and noting the lack of corroboration from other sources, is here: [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Something more substantial might be here: [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Declaration of Parliment[7].—eric 00:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the full text of Fut.Perf.'s books preview, citing Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, where there is no mention of any bones.—eric 04:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

...he tuk the banes of Robert leslie and foirfaultit him for certaine crymes of leismajestiesis...

Lindsay, Robert of Pitscottie (1899). The historie and cronicles of Scotland. Edinburgh. I. p. 382. There's also a note in II. p.407.—eric 02:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The passage concerning Leslie and 12/3/1540 Parliament are only in one of Robert Lindsay's manuscripts. The judicial proceedings only state the heirs were summoned and did not appear. Here is the entry in Britannica[8] (1888 edition). The 1542 Act that "confined this revolting procedure to certain treasons of the more heinous kind" is i think from 3/12/1543(N.S.)[9] and again only refers to summoning the heirs.—eric 03:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A somewhat parallel case is that when Pedro I of Portugal came to the throne, he allegedly had the remains of Inês de Castro exhumed, and forced those who had snubbed and insulted her while she was alive to kiss the bones of her hands... AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Radical feminism and biotechnology

I've just read the The Dialectic of Sex, wich in turn led me to the articles of postgenderism and radical feminism. Those lectures (specially the "future technologies" part of the posgenderism article) made me wonder if there are radical feminist organizations funding or otherwise promoting biotechnology research to erase the burden of pregnancy, as this appears to be smnething aligned with their goals. Asking because feminist discussion in the press tend to focus in the sociolgy part of it, think (but I could be wrong)81.35.215.136 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you overestimate the economic impact of movements like radical feminism. The kind of scientific research you're speaking of requires levels of funding that only large corporations and national governments can provide. For whatever it can do to achieve its aims, radical feminism is not a single organization, and does not broadly have the funding or organization to do scientific research on that level. --Jayron32 21:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you refer to an artificial womb ? SinisterLefty (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Dont know much about these feminist or genderfocused movements and what they do but you may be interested in Michel Foucaults books Madness and Civilization and The History of Sexuality aswell as what he coined out as "Postsexualism". Very unfortunately he died much to young to write more of his ingenious philosophic analyses. --Kharon (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

81.35.215.136 -- One theme running through the Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold (one of the most famous extended science-fiction series of the last 30 years) is the impact of "uterine replicators" on the societies of several planets. It's not really invented by radical feminists, though, and in Ethan of Athos it's embraced by a society founded by misogynists... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

to erase the "burden of pregnancy" is just to erase womanhood, it is hard to imagine more misogynistic indeed. Since you mentioned science-fiction, Bene Tleilax seems in order. Gem fr (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

November 7

Does Wikisource feel like Wikistalgia??

This discussion of feelings about a neologism is terminated. DroneB (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Before you post in this section, please make sure you know all about Wikisource. It is a library of many old works. I know very well that the reason only old works are generally allowed in Wikisource is because of copyright, but regardless of this it often feels like Wikistalgia (Wiki + (no)stalgia.) Does it feel like this way to you?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC) This desk is not the correct venue for this discussion. Our purpose here is not to discuss our feelings. Please start this discussion in another location instead.--Jayron32 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I put this question at this desk because I view it as related to the subject of humanities; specifically the human creation of wiki software. Georgia guy (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC) It doesn't matter what you view it as, we don't answer requests for people's feelings. We provide references to questions. There's a lot of other places on the great wide internet to ask your question at. This tiny corner of the internet is not it. Try somewhere else.--Jayron32 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC) As for "we provide references to questions", I think it's a big surprise that Wikipedia has no reference to this question anywhere in its main namespace. Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC) That's right, because it isn't a request for references, it's a request to discuss our feelings. Which is not what we do here. There is no meaningful way to deal with your question here. Ask it somewhere else. --Jayron32 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC) As for the subject of people's feelings, Wikipedia's articles do have many references to people's feelings; these occur primarily in sections with labels like "Criticism" or "Reviews". These sections do have information that depends on how people feel about the article's subject; an example is a film article can say things like "Rotten Tomatoes gave the film an A minus". This statement describes the quality of something based on people's feelings, right?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC) You didn't ask for reviews of Wikisource. You asked "does it feel that way to you". There are no published sources containing my feelings on this matter for me to refer you to.--Jayron32 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Reviews on things are commonly based on how people feel about them. Georgia guy (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nation which currently has the same territory/borders for longest period

What is the nation in the world that has had exactly (or almost exactly, give or take a few m2) the same territory and borders for the longest period up till now, and since what year does it exist in that form? (just full-blown sovereign nations: not microstates, city states, constituent countries, principalities, etc.) thank you Ecolchester (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion for where to look: single island nations, since those typically don't have the opportunity or risk of gaining or losing territory to land neighbors (there are, of course, a few exceptions, like Hispaniola, Zypern and New Guinea). Of those, Japan can be excluded, since it lost some territory in WW2. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Do island states count? Otherwise I would suspect Switzerland is in the running. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

According to our article: Switzerland's borders have not changed, except for some minor adjustments, since the 1815 Congress of Vienna. So, that's the date to beat, but I wouldn't think that would be hard to do. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We can beat that by centuries. See Andorra, whose borders with France and Spain have not changed since 1278. List of land borders with dates of establishment mentions it briefly, but this map here discusses it as well. See also Paréage of Andorra 1278 which established the territory in its modern form. --Jayron32 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification, would it count if the same borders now in place for the modern nation were also in place back when it was a colony, or would you only count it since full independence ? How about if the form of government changes, does that "reset the clock" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

These clarifications don't matter unless your proposed country can beat 1278. See above. --Jayron32 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Andorra is both a principality and a microstate, and hence excluded by the OP. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I missed that. You are quite right. Carry on. --Jayron32 16:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why exclude microstates? San Marino has had its current borders since 1463. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Microstates can still qualify as "full-blown sovereign nations". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• If we only count the mainland portion of Portugal, its border with (what would later become) Spain was established in 1297 with the Treaty of Alcañices. Other than minor disputes over a few small villages (see Couto Misto and Olivenza), that border has remained unchanged since then. If we count the insular portions of Portugal, the Azores and Madeira were settled in the early-to-mid 1400s. --Jayron32 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• That border disappeared in 1580 but reappeared again in 1640 in the same place it used to be. I'd say it only counts as unchanged since then. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. It didn't disappear. Portugal and Spain remained independent nations with independent governments, laws, and institutions through the whole period of the Iberian Union; they just shared a monarch. It was analogous to Scotland and England between 1603 - 1707 or between the various Commonwealth nations with Elizabeth II today. As noted in the article you linked "The governments, institutions, and legal traditions of each kingdom remained independent of each other." --Jayron32 17:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

But do we include colonial territory as part of the colonizing nation? If so, then there was a significant period of time when “Portugal” included large chunks of South America. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

True. There was a time period when the capital of Portugal was in South America from 1808-1821. --Jayron32 17:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess we can rule out the whole of America and Africa, too much change here. Except, maybe, Ethiopia and Egypt (but this will depend on your definition of a Nation)

Too much change in Europe, too. Even Sweden and Switzerland, with one of the the less bumpy history of the land, did change somewhat.

In Asia, I see 3 very solid contenders : Persia/Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia. We can rule out India, China, Japan, Korea, Siam/Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam etc.

You could add Sri Lanka, up to you to count it as microstate or not; also, I am not that sure it was really united so long ago; Madagascar wasn't, AFAIK

All in all, my bet would be Iran Gem fr (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

... And I would be wrong. More change here than I thought. Qajar Iran. Let's check Mongolia... not good either. Gem fr (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopia seems to have solidified sometime after Abyssinian–Adal war, before 1632 History_of_Ethiopia#Gondarine_Period, if I understand well Gem fr (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

But some of it seems to have changed somewhat alongside Egypt : [10]

Back to Switzerland/1815, then? Gem fr (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The phone call between Trump and the Ukraine president

This is a question about the "infamous" phone call between Trump and the Ukraine president. The phone call that supposedly started all this impeachment talk. So, am I correct to assume that the phone call is not actually tape-recorded? If so, why is that the case? And is that the case for all (USA) presidential phone calls? Or just some subset of his phone calls (i.e., phone calls between presidents of different nations)? Now, there is some transcript made. And I think I heard that there are many, many people listening to the call (i.e., other officials, plus the transcribers who create the transcript, etc.). So, what's the point of having so many people listen in on these calls, and, further, then go about to transcribe it? How is this different than an actual audiotape? I am trying to understand the reasoning behind all this rigmarole. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Presidents have generally avoided this since the Nixon tapes. Both Nixon and prior presidents who recorded themselves did not do this with the intention of creating a ver batim record, except for certain important moments or things already public, such as press conferences. Rather, the tapes were intended for personal use. Non-exact transcripts and memos might be considered safer. See also this article in The Atlantic and the research it links to. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is some other information.[11] Basically the same point as the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I will review those links. Thanks. @Someguy1221: ... you stated above that Non-exact transcripts and memos might be considered safer. Isn't the whole point of transcription that it be accurate, exact, etc.? What's the point of transcribing, if we don't want it to be accurate, exact, etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The inexact transcription can be a useful aide-memoire to the conversation participants, while being less incriminating than a recording when the inevitable trial comes about. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)