Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

July 1

Borders of the United States between 1781 and 1784?

The Treaty of Paris (1783) established the western border of the United States as the Mississippi River. However, I'm wondering: Was this what the states claimed during the whole revolution, or did it just come out in the final peace process? That is to say, if I were to make a map of the country after 1781 (when the Articles of Confederation came into force) but before 1784 (when the treaty came into force), would it only extend to the Proclamation Line of 1763? Or would the nascent country have claimed everything west as well? --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Territorial evolution of the United States" might be helpful.—Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote that article, hence why I'm asking, for the rewrite of it. :) --Golbez (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I prefer the old maps, but perhaps this is for the article talk page. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Illinois campaign (1778-9) where the British were "run out" and the French Canadian residents swore oaths of loyalty and became citizens of Virgina (Illinois Country, and Illinois County, Virginia) Rmhermen (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How factually accurate is the lede of the wikipedia Assault Rifle article?

The Assault rifle article strangely has an intro that sounds like the common sort of obsessive myth of the ww2/hitler genesis story of the STG-44. Were any assault rifles used before ww2? How slow was the adoption of the AR by various nations such as germany, the US, and european militaries? Were ARs developed first by germany? Was the role of the STG-44 as significant as the article portrays it to have been, detailing it's history and folklore about the stg-44? The article talks about how the definition of the AR is a "strict" one, and that it is very specific and the article insists that there is universal agreement over what rifles are ARs and what aren't going so far as to listing several comparing them to the "strict definition" put forth by the article. I find this very strange. Is there really such a strong consensus to the exact definition of an assault rifle going so far as to prescribe the exact minimum range a rifle has to accurately hit mansized targets at? Is there really such a strong consensus as to which rifles are and aren't assault rifles, and which assault rifle was the first assault rifle? What about the federof avtomat? The winchester model 1907? The assault rifle article calls out the stg-44 as pioneering the "straight stock and pistol grip". What of the Winchester Model 1917 that has the same features? What of the furrer m1920 with it's 7.65x35mm intermediate rifle cartridge? I'm asking this here because I don't have a lot of access to reliable sources on the topic, and the article cites several books that I don't have access to which make up the bulk of the reliable sources cited for the claims the article is making. How much of this story comes from the greater mythos of world war 2? Is the consensus of the experts in the field really as strong as the article makes it seem? If the intermediate rifle cartridge is so central to the genesis of the AR, why does the article have no information about, for instance, the 7.65x35mm, and it's history, and instead has this banner waving nazi wunderwaffen tale? I'd really appreciate if someone could round up a good reliable source or two that I can read. Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article already cites ten reliable sources. Abebooks and Amazon probably have them. You could also try searching for them on Google books. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following that advice leads to "The World's Assault Rifles and Automatic Carbines" Daniel D. Musgrave, Thomas B. Nelson T. B. N. Enterprises, 1967 546 pages "in world war II, germany also put an assault rifle into action. The principal feature which distinguishes the assault rifle from the semi-" but I'm only getting bits of three pages, and I don't have access to it. There's also "The German Assault Rifle: 1935-1945" 9781581606720 which seems to tell a different story, covering the Mk 42, judging by the table of contents. It looks like the Mk 42 automatic carbine was an open tender served by Haenel, Walther, and Vollmer each submitting a design, and here's something out of left field. The Stg 44? It's derived quite directly from the Haenel / Schmeiiser MKb.42(H). It doesn't look like the stg 44 was the first anything. And I'm starting to question this whole story about some hidden project to develop the stg 44 behind hitler's back as a supposed machine pistol, when, it seems, in fact, the stg 44 is derived from this machine karbine 42 project. This is throwing a lot of doubt on those 10 reliable sources you mentioned that are mostly books that I don't have access to. I don't suppose someone at the reference desk would have access to either of these books or would be in a position to research this topic a little? And thanks for the fruitful advice. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the stg 44 wasn't even the first german assault rifle. OK, google books has a preview of "Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact

By David Westwood" In germany at least there's the Vollmer M35 in 1935 followed by the haenel, designed in 1940 and produced in 1941. "german interest in an intermediate cartridge first expressed itself in the 1930s... the design was a fact by 1940" It looks like russian employment of SMGs may have played a factor. "realized infantry action took place within 400 yards... automatic fire... forced him to keep his head down... making the approach and assault much easier... added to the fact that the russians were opting for cheap stamped machine pistols" The mauser g41 had been too heavy. Apparently walther submitted their first intermediate cartridge machine carbine model in 1937 two years after the vollmer.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your own intro could serve as the manual's illustration for the emotional impact of any combination featuring the two words "Adolf" and "Hitler" ( you are not wrong however that the part they are quoted might be otherwise rewritten). Note that the Haenel is the Stg44.. there is the fact that the Germans held combined military manoeuvers with the Russians in the 30's but the sources do not suggest that the 400 meters theory derives from this period. Then the adequacy of the Stg44 would be more or less coincidental, and the theory itself the result of experience. The importance of Hitler in the genesis could still yet however be attributed to the legends of an other time, when submachine-guns where considered remaining an ugly apanage of the gangsters, although yet war had to be done [1]. --Askedonty (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stg was developed from the haenel with modifications, but it does seem common to conflate the two. And even in just germany the haenel was proceeded by the walther machine caribine, and that was proceeded by the vollmer.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking after it I found the interesting story of the 1917 Winchester Machine Rifle as it's considered a possible predecessor, but it's also, say an industrial dead-end. It can be concluded that not everything which is technically possible will necessarily find its reason to materialize, or to be continued, like in this precise case. If all kinds of predecessors may deserve to be mentioned, that's if they are reasonably related, and the fact that they are sharing a technical aspect (eg intermediate caliber, some capacities) will not always relate them regarding the end they were conceived for. --Askedonty (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then more recently and for a very long time an assault rifle was commonly either an AK-47 or clone, otherwise an M16 or clone. With such a limited set of branches, the genealogy must not be so diverse as that of all the automatic rifles. There is a prehistoristic stage certainly, but we need to stand on firm ground. Would it lead to anything else but to a discussion about trench intended assault-rifles anyway ?--Askedonty (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was the winchester 1907 before that. "The research led to an article published in the NRA Journal for the American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917. The father of this remarkable weapon was none other than Frank B. Burton, the noted engineer who worked with John Browning on the first BAR." did leap out at me. Addressing possible revamped versions of the article, I would support the article having something along the lines of "The origin of the name "assault rifle" and the first wide-scale use of assault rifles coincided when the StG-44 was adopted by the German Army in World War 2. But the article in it's current incarnation is wrong to state that the consensus is that the stg-44 was the first rifle with the qualities that define an assault rifle. The deadend, to me, seems to be the narrative of the article that the genesis of the assault rifle was it's development in nazi germany as one of hitler's wunderwaffen. It seems to be a false narrative. Is there a source says that the AK-47's over barrel gas tube was derived from the StG-44? Also, while the AK and AR are certainly the main branches, they certainly aren't the only families of assault rifles, no matter how dominant they are.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of reliable sources. TeeTylerToe simply refuses to acknowledge them and wants to fundamentally rewrite the article to match his point-of-view. Please, read TeeTylerToes comments on the Assault Rifle Talk Page.

I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll. His talk page edits follow the profile. He asks question for which the answers are obvious. He asks multiple often repetitive questions. He refuses to listen to the answers. He demands to know who decides which answers are correct, then repeats the questions. He provides nonsense examples and long draw-out often rambling comments, including 10 or more questions. He has done this not only on the Assault rifle talk page but every talk page that he edits.

And as Bilcat pointed out he did the same thing with his June 29 comments at Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II#Why are editors inserting an OR narrative that the A-10 design was a revolutionary tabula rasa design?--RAF910 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief History of the Assault Rifle, recently published The Atlantic article, may or may not help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Witch-burning site in Poland

A couple of years ago I remember seeing a flat ground inscription in the Warsaw Old Town, approximately here in Podwale which said in Polish that in the Middle Ages on this site witches have been burned (in Polish, citing by memory: "w tym miejscu w średniowieczu palono czarownic"). Later I walked across Podwale, but saw nothing, possibly because of parked cars that frequently obscure the sidewalk (and on Google Maps the sidewalk is also crammed by cars). When I asked in the local tourist info spot, they said there's no such thing in Warsaw. Maybe I'm confusing this with another Polish city, but almost certainly it was Warsaw, less likely Toruń. Any ideas? Brandmeister^talk 11:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a logical error with the tourism official stating that there is no such site in Warsaw. Do they claim to know everything that ever happened in Warsaw, from the Middle Ages on ? If it's so minor an event to modern Warsaw citizens that it only merits a plaque, which people then park on top of, it may very well drop "below the RADAR" of tourism officials. The tourism official should have said "none that I am aware of". I've had a similar problem with store clerks saying "we've never carried that item", when they really mean "we haven't carried it in the two years I've worked here", and they have no idea if they carried it before then. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I'm afraid it was either removed or got buried under the parked cars. If only I could take a photo... Brandmeister^talk 20:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some Polish websites (e.g., [2][3]) which confirm that the place where Piekarska and Podwale streets meet today used be an execution site, particularly for burning at stake, and was known in Polish as Piekiełko ("Little Hell"). I couldn't find any mentions of a memorial plaque, though. I will ask a certified Warsaw tourist guide that I know; maybe she knows whether it is or used to be there. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she isn't aware of any plaque commemorating the pyres, either now or in the past. There is only the statue of Jan Kiliński and the commemorative plaque for Maria Konopnicka (you can see both in Google Street View). — Kpalion^(talk) 14:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

Secession vs Declaring independence

Is there any substantive difference in the terms "seceded" and "declared independence?" --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be interesting to see if there's a correlation between independence and success. But to answer your question, take a look at the language used in wikisource:Category:Declarations of Independence. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 05:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, "seceded" is rather negatively charged, unlike "declared independence" which implies some sort of legitimacy. Also, "declared independence" implies some previous aspiration and struggle for independence. The CSA, for instance, seceded from the US, not "declared independence"~, while the US declared independence from the British Empire, not seceded from it (like many other modern countries akin to Croatia or East Timor). Brandmeister^talk 08:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that secession is only possible if the entity seceding is an integral part of a larger entity. For example, Western Australia could (and almost did in 1933) secede from Australia. It can't declare independence from Australia because it is not dependent on her; that's because it is an integral part of her. The pips of an orange cannot declare independence from the orange, but they can secede. OTOH, a colony can declare independence from the mother country, because it is by definition dependent on her; but it cannot secede, because it is not an integral part of her. Not for all purposes, anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory of the USA; its people are treated like other Americans for some purposes, but not all purposes. It can declare independence. The people of Texas, otoh, are Americans for all purposes, by right, and they can secede. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, Texas didn't secede from Mexico - it declared independence from it. And some CSA secession declarations actually specify they were declarations of independence. I would agree that you can't secede from a colonizing power, but that doesn't mean you can't declare independence from a nation you're part of. --Golbez (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the Texas portion of Mexico seceded. But that situation is complicated. Texas continued to be at war with Mexico and within itself, until the Mexican War put an end to most of the hostilities some ten years after Texas' declaration of independence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Secede" etymologically and as a matter of legal history means to "withdraw" from a union of some sort. Technically it is only possible to secede if you are a smaller entity within the larger entity, so it makes sense to talk about a state seceding from a federation, but it wouldn't make sense for some disparate bits of territory to "secede" from the country. A "declaration of independence" doesn't have this layer of meaning and so can probably be used whether or not the thing doing the declaration is an entity in itself. So Western Australia could be described as "seceding", and it could plausibly have a "declaration of independence" too, whereas if the city of Coober Pedy became an independent country it probably would not be described as "seceding". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing chunks of city

Searching "Vancouver, WA" got me this map[4], which contains a missing chunk highlighted by the green circle. If that chunk isn't part of the city, does it mean it belong to a higher entity i.e. the county, state or the federal government? Or is this simply a mapping error? Crudiv1 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a normal effect of municipal annexation. The city's original boundaries were farther to the southeast (around downtown), and they gradually annexed territory farther northwest, but for whatever reason they decided not to annex the chunk highlighted by the green circle. This spot is part of the county, but because Vancouver isn't an independent city, the city is part of the county as well; this chunk is merely unincorporated. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the map on page 3 of this PDF shows that the area surrouding the "missing chunk" was annexed sometime from 1991 to 2000 inclusive. But the document is mainly about possible new annexations and does not talk about the details of past annexations. If you look at aerial views of the city, e.g. by clicking "Earth" in Google Maps, you'll see that the "missing chunk" seems to correspond to some sort of industrial facility with a loop of railroad tracks around it, but it's hard to tell what it is and it's certainly not obvious what distinguishes it from the surrounding land that was annexed. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page 8 of the PDF lists the site as "Alcoa", for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF seems to contradict other information: a map from 2009 shows the site as part of Vancouver and a 2009 document on the Port of Vancouver USA website says it was annexed via Ordinance no. M-3914. It was "purposefully left out" when the surrounding area was annexed in 1994.[5] Peter James (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such things aren't uncommon. See the map of Los Angeles's boundaries for a much crazier map. As a So Cal resident I can tell you that a lot of people who live here don't understand very well where exactly they live. It's common to just say "I'm from LA" if you're from anywhere in the Greater Los Angeles Area. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Columbus, the Ohio state capital, in File:Map of Franklin County, Ohio highlighting Columbus.svg — the city extends into two other counties, and it's adjacent or almost adjacent to another three. Since Ohio has townships, the unincorporated parts of Columbus-area townships have rather bizarre boundaries; consider the map of Franklin Township (the boundaries are of 2000) for an extreme example, and Clinton Township (two blobs with tiny islands elsewhere) or Truro Township (a few islands in the northeast, but the southwestern island is where virtually everyone lives) for other examples. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of German duchies. I often wonder what traces exist of their former boundaries! —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is more like enclaves and exclaves, and you can see a great example here of enclaves within enclaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau#/media/File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator of the proto-General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

Not having access to the 1908 edition of the Church of Scotland Yearbook (I'm not finding it with Google), and not knowing where else to look, I come here. List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, with its early centuries based heavily on the 1908 edition, claims that both John Row and Patrick Adamson were moderators of the April 1567 meeting of the Assembly. Obviously you can't have two people in the chair at the same time (it's the presiding officer of the meeting, the equivalent of the Speaker), so the situation is rather confusing. Did one replace the other partway through, or was there conflict over which one was lawfully the moderator (like the Old Court – New Court controversy centuries later in a different context), or is there simply a mistake here? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proceedings of the meeting are available online, here, and indicate that Row was the moderator in April 1576. Warofdreams talk 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Adamson; thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a romance book

My wife reads romances. In 2011 she read a book after she downloaded it in Kindle. We have a joint Amazon account and since then I've downloaded many books on it too. Now she cannot find it presuming somehow the book has been deleted. She does not remember the author's name or the title, only some characters and the plot. This is what she recalls:

I remember in the book I'm looking for, 3 mayor characters: a nobleman/scientist Edmond/Edmund/Edward (?), his 17 year old niece (Jane?), a very strong character; David, an 18 year old boy who works in the stables (both he and the niece are horse-crazy), handsome and much too refined for a stable boy (his origins unknown). Edward is teaching them both. By the end of the book, by sheer accident, it was discovered that David's relatives are "noble" people leaving nearby.

My wife says the book was well written in excellent English and she wants to find and reread it.

I wonder if anybody could name the author or the title? Thanks, ---AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly A London Season by Joan Wolf? Tevildo (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: Thank you, but she said, no. She says she has most of Joan Wolf's books and knows them well. Besides it is a rural setting, not London's. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Less possibly, The Runaway Duke by Julie Anne Long? The names are wrong and the reviews aren't that good, but the heroine's father is interested in science. This thread on Amazon has some more suggestions for books with the same basic theme. Tevildo (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: Thank you, but she said it is not correct again. She said the duke or whatever the nobleman's title never ran away but as you probably understand, any suggestion is very much appreciated. She is also very certain about the names. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22, it may be easiest for you to track this down yourself. If you go to Amazon.com and select Your Orders, then Digital Orders placed in 2011, you should see the purchase of the book. John M Baker (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Baker: it is a great idea and I will definitely try it. I've done it before but not for the books, so now it is the time to use it again. Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the average height of a Medieval cathedral?

Does it matter much if you count the tallest one a city ever had or just what exists now? Cause some got damaged/destroyed by wind, fire, World War II etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What parts do you want to measure? Because some have towers and spires...we have List of highest church naves, which measures the top of the interior ceiling, and therefore ignores whatever else there may be outside. There is also List of tallest church buildings in the world. We'd have to go through the list and find all the medieval ones, but remember also that not all the parts of the church would necessarily have been there in the Middle Ages, since they often took centuries to complete. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total height. You're right about taking that list with a grain of salt. It says my city's cathedral is 1878 but the article says the spires were added 1888. Should I change the list? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Victorians slapped spires on hundreds of medieval churches. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And lots more fell down or met with other accidents, like the 149 metre spire of Old St Paul's Cathedral, which caught fire and collapsed in 1561. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

France too - see Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. Notre Dame had a medieval spire at one point, but Viollet le Duc gave it an even bigger one, because why not. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly confounding factor: There are several medieval churches that are now cathedrals (eg Southwark, St Albans) which were not cathedrals in the Middle Ages. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity [[User:Sagittarian Milky Way, I Googled the dates that you mentioned and came up with St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan). If this is the cathedral that you were referring to, it was already on the list, but an editor had given it a height of 339 feet (103 m) instead of the 330 feet in our article. I found St. Patrick’s Cathedral history & restoration facts which says "Height to the top of the Spires: 329 feet, 6 inches" (100.4 m). I have used this reference to amend both articles. Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One question which may need local knowledge: the source above says "The spires were finished in 1888 and were the tallest in New York City from 1880-1890 and the second tallest in the United States". Our list of tallest churches only has Riverside Church (1930) as taller than St Patrick's in the USA, so which church was St Patrick's second to in 1888 and which church overtook it in NYC in 1890? Google isn't helping I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that it means the tallest building in New York city until 1890, when the New York World Building was completed, and the second tallest building in the United States after the old Chicago Board of Trade Building until then. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to the article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Mercedita

Can anybody find any information about this painting of the USS Mercedita (1861)? Like who created it and when was it created?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking the Naval History and Heritage Command, which is credited (as the Naval Historical Center) as the source of the picture? Rojomoke (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

Samuel Byck

Hi. My queries are about Samuel Joseph Byck (1930-1974). 1- In the film "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" it appears that he had a brother named Julius. Is a historical fact or fiction? 2- What were his parent´s names? Thanks. Daniel, 4 July 2016 88.10.201.162 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Returning hero motif

There are several tales and legends about various future returns of certain characters, such as king in the mountain, Rory who will save Ireland or two priests who disappeared into the walls during the fall of Constantinople and who will return once the city becomes Christian again. Is there a common name for such a motif / trope? Brandmeister^talk 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tvtropes.org calls it King in the Mountain [6] with many examples.
Sleigh (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, our king in the mountain article describes "a prominent motif" rather than one specific story and includes a list of examples. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When Johnny Comes Marching Home" somewhat falls into this category. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an accurate and scientific translation of Quran

I don't know Arabic and I want to read Quran for the first time. I heard that most of the translations are biased. Could you please offer an accurate, scientific and neutral translation of Quran? 46.225.1.83 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that any translation of so contentious a work can ever be considered "neutral", which is ultimately a political term. Here is a 2005 article that might help you in "Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an". This is the Wikipedia article on English translations of the Quran; it lists dozens of versions in the 21st century alone, so I understand why you feel the need for guidance. The external links to that article may help you. One of the most recent translations, and one released by a mainstream American publisher, is The Study Quran; from a CNN article about it:

"I never advise a non-Muslim who wants to find out more about Islam to blindly grab the nearest copy of an English-language Quran they can find," Mehdi Hasan, a journalist for Al Jazeera, said during the panel discussion at Georgetown. Ten years in the making, "The Study Quran" is more than a rebuttal to terrorists, said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-born intellectual and the book's editor-in-chief. His aim was to produce an accurate, unbiased translation understandable to English-speaking Muslims, scholars and general readers.

But then, who is going to say that their aim is to produce an inaccurate, biased version? So ultimately, you will have to make up your own mind. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent summary, @Carbon Caryatid:, nothing to add to a very contentious subject indeed, but that I've updated English translations of the Quran to include basic details from the cited CNN ref on The Study Quran.

My favorite of four translations I've dipped into over the years, I must admit, as it explicitly deals with the very many complementary and conflicting commentaries over the last 1,400 years (perhaps uniquely, with both Shiite and Sunni traditions well represented) and has many additional helpful aids.

Very much in the line of the the trusty Harper Study Bible. Highly recommended and worthy of an article, if scholarly reviews are to be treated as reliable sources to the notability of this publication. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can get you a completely unbiased translation, but it may make translation mistakes, and its English isn't that good. For al-Baqara, go to [7]. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can never guarantee that a Google Translation will be unbiased. It works primarily by corpus translation – comparing versions of the same document in different languages to work out how one language maps onto the other. If its corpus includes a biased translation of a text, it will blindly use it in future translations. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to read more than one translation at a time. There are websites that give several translations of the Qur'an alongside the Arabic, such as Alim.org, Qur'an Browser, Qur'an Online, and the most comprehensive one that I know of, Islam Awakened, which has 40 different translations, separated into generally accepted and controversial ones. There are surely many other websites that do this too. Nothing quite as extensive as some of the Bible websites that give different translations, but Islam Awakened might be the best place to look. Typically the websites have the translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, as well as Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, and maybe some others. If you see a translation called "Noble Qur'an", that's probably the Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur'an, which is very popular, but it's the "official" translation of the Saudi government and it's been criticized for being heavily biased towards Wahhabism.

Personally, I have Yusuf Ali's translation. It's probably the most widely read one, and probably the easiest to find if you want an actual physical book (or at least it used to be, before The Noble Qur'an was published). But it's also the one that was promoted by the Saudis before The Noble Qur'an, so it has problems too. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Tikhanov

Where can I find the complete list of works by Mikhail Tikhanov (1789-1862), the artist of Vasily Golovnin's circumnavigation aboard the Kamchatka? Here are the ones that I know of on commons:Category:Mikhail Tikhanov. His name is also spelled differently in different sources as well. There is one I am especially interested in finding depicting a Hawaiian girl with her pet dog in her hands.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've browsed Russian sources, this one says he made 43 watercolor paintings and 17 of his works were selected as illustrations for Golovnin's book. Per the same source, 2 of his works depict the Brazilian part of the expedition, 4 - the Peruvian part, 18 - the Aleutian and Alaskan part, 5 are from the Californian part, 5 from Mariana Islands, 3 from Manila, 4 from Hawaii, of which one is a portrait of Kamehameha I. Tikhanov appears to be quite underresearched even in Russia. Brandmeister^talk 08:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Trade Deals and How to Negotiate Them

What is it specifically about a trade deal that takes so long to negotiate? Is it that you have to basically list every conceivable type of good and then write rules for each one individually? China said recently we'd need a team of 500 to negotiate one with them. in simple terms, what needs negotiating and how does it work?

So much talk about this in the Brexit campaign but little explanation of what actually happens. Obviously I'm not naive enough to think that two people just sit in a room and agree to trade with each other then sign off on it, but still have very little understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukerees83 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sticking points are IP and pharmaceuticals. Then there is the trade in subsidised agricultural commodities which are sold below cost of production i.e. dumping.
Sleigh (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is consideration for how free trade of each commodity or service will affect your own nation's workers. If you're going to put large numbers of workers in a given industry out of work, then you might need to take some actions to limit the damage, such as slowly phasing in the free trade, putting some limits on it, or perhaps imposing rules similar to your own industry on the foreign nation, if they wish to compete with your own. There's also the cost of retraining everyone who will lose their job, employment benefits, etc. Of course, you could just take a lassez-faire approach and ignore the plight of your workers, but that may have political repercussions at the next election. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to read some articles with references, take a look at Template:World trade. While all articles there would be of interest to you, the articles listed under the "Issues" tab would probably be most applicable.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan name and independence

When was the Turkmen SSR renamed to the Republic of Turkmenistan? And, does anyone know if a copy of either that law, and/or (dunno if it happened at the same time) the Turkmen Declaration of Independence are available online, in any language? --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Land The Republic of Turkmenistan, independent successor state to the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, declared its independence following the collapse of the attempted coup against the USSR's Gorbachëv in August 1991. October 27 has been established as the official Independence Day". See Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States 2012 by M. Wesley Shoemaker (p. 276).

Some more information at Prospects for Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Countries edited by Levent Gönenç (pp. 205-206), but no luck on finding the declaration text online. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of surprising such an important document isn't online, but yeah, it does seem that it was a binary switch from "Turkmen SSR in the USSR" to "independent Turkmenistan", unlike most of the other SSRs which changed names sometime before independence. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi female spy

I cant seem to remember, but who was the most female spy during the WW? sHES practically a household name, danced around.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're thinking of Mata Hari? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you.Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was pre-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 7