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.

November 1

Has George Will endorsed anyone in the coming U.S. presidential election?

As I was saying: Does anyone know of an endorsement by George Will in the coming U.S. presidential election? Did he say explicitly that he's not endorsing anyone? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harris.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In September 2024, Will announced that he would vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 United States presidential election." This statement was added to our article on George Will on September 17. Then still somewhat hidden deep down in the article, this information was added to its lead section the next day. --Lambiam 07:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth checking the article first, hunh? I'll have to keep reminding myself! 178.51.16.158 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up reading George Will. The irony is that he's the reason we got Trump as a president, twice. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did he endorse Trump in 2016? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Will's philosophy vis-à-vis libertarianism, not who he endorses or supports. When I grew up, Will was a huge cheerleader for Reagan, which is how we got into this mess. Reagan, via Paul Weyrich and others, opened the floodgates for the Christian nationalists, who now believe Russia leads the world in maintaining and preserving conservative Christianity. American Christian nationalists believe that democracy is a threat to Christianity, a bizarre idea that led them to forge alliances with Russia and eventually, Trump. You don't have to believe me, but those are the facts. The Heritage Foundation was funded by the same libertarians Will supported, and who are now tasked with converting the US into a hybrid, corporate-theocratic governing body. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. No evidence adduced. Let me tell you a story in a similar vein, likewise without evidence: Reagan's rise was ultimately a corrective to the massive statism of Lyndon Johnson, whose policies led to the malaise of the Carter years. The one who actually started the correction, in an interesting irony of fate, was Carter, not Reagan.

But Carter was burdened by what had been, in his party. The time was not ripe for center-left parties to take credit for free-market policies; that would have to wait for the Clinton—Blair years of dear memory.

So Reagan got the credit (not entirely undeserved) for the resulting boom in the 1980s.

We do not in fact "know 40 years on that Reagan was wrong". Oh, he was wrong about many things. But not about his liberal economics; that was fine. It was picked up by perhaps the second-best president of my lifetime, Bill Clinton, whom the GOP of the time insisted of making an enemy of for some reason. --Trovatore (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re essentially correct about Carter; that is a well known and oft-repeated anecdote. But Clinton signed NAFTA and supported globalization and promoted neoliberalism which was not beneficial to most people in the US and elsewhere. You appear to be about two decades behind in your analysis. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton signed NAFTA, which was good, and promoted neoliberalism, which was also good. --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Milanović: "Why is a neoliberal ruler worse than the “all-encompassing-interest” despot? Precisely because he lacks the all-encompassing interest in his polity as he does not see himself as being part of it; rather he is the owner of a giant company called in this case the United States of America where he decides who should do what. People complain that Trump, in this crisis, is lacking the most elementary human compassion. But while they are right in diagnosis, they are wrong in understanding the origin of the lack of compassion. Like any rich owner he does not see that his role is to show compassion to his hired hands, but to decide what they should do, and even when the occasion presents itself, to squeeze them out of their pay, make them work harder or dismiss them without a benefit. In doing so to his putative countrymen he is just applying to an area called “politics” the principles that he has learned and used for many years in business. Trump is the best student of neoliberalism because he applies its principles without concealment."

Popular dissatisfaction with the effects of neoliberalism is how we got Trump, and in return, we get more. Nice feedback loop. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism is precisely not the guy at the top deciding who will do what. It's letting people choose how they order their economic lives on their own. And Trump is very far removed from it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more. Trump is the very embodiment of neoliberalism, its end result, as it were. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be overstating Will's influence. If you want to blame someone, you could blame Goldwater. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a fun game. I blame Roosevelt. fiveby(zero) 13:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or more specifically, Roosevelt's opponents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like blaming Burr for not shooting that bastard soon enough? fiveby(zero) 17:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will’s influence on Americans was substantial. He made a case for Reaganomics being as natural as baseball and apple pie. Except 40 years on, we know he was wrong. The largest fruit of Reagan was financialization, which destroys every sector it touches, weakens nations, encourages fascism, and promotes inequality. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do companies spin off subsidiaries of the parent company?

How do companies spin off subsidiaries of the parent company? What is the process of spinning off subsidiaries? Do the parent company sell shares of the spin off company to its shareholders WJetChao (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The processes of spinning-off a subsidiary are: first, the parent company groups the line of business to form a subsidiary; second, the parent company transfers the relevant assets to the newly formed subsidiary. Third, the parent company distributes the newly formed subsidiary’s shares to existing shareholders on a pro rata basis as a special dividend. Finally, the newly formed subsidiary is listed separately as an independent company and probably it will also issue and sell shares to the public (the process is called initial public offering or IPO). Stanleykswong (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for a PD image of the seal of Patriarch Amalric

I am a bit frustrated. In a snippet view of Sigillographie de l'Orient latin I see that it probably contains an image of the seal of Amalric of Nesle, Latin patriarch of Jerusalem. It is presumably the image of the seal depicted at this site too. Alternatively it might be showing the patriarch's bulla, like this one. The book is in public domain and so we could use its images of seals, but I cannot find it online. This time last year I asked here for help regarding another seal from the same book, and Lambiam and Alansplodge brilliantly found it in another book, but I am not sure that will work now. I will also ask at WP:RX. Surtsicna (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copy of that book on archive.org here. I can't seem to connect to it at the moment, I'm not sure if this is a general issue or my sketchy internet connection. Alansplodge (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is misidentified, Alansplodge. That is another book, which can be seen from the title on its cover. And yes, I too have had troubles with archive.org lately. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, apologies. The Hathi Trust catalogue record has a publication date of 1943 and says that it "is not available online - search only — due to copyright restrictions". Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference to "la bulle de plomb du roi de Jérusalem, Amauri I^er (1162–1173), qui a été publiée par M. le Marquis de Vogüé⁽¹⁾".^[2] The reference is to: Melchior de Vogüé, "Monnaies inédites des croisades", la Revue numismatique 1864, pp. 275–293 & pl. XIII, nr. 1. --Lambiam 18:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that Amalric of Jerusalem? fiveby(zero) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. --Lambiam 18:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RX came through. The seal image is taken from the lost Anastasis mosaic correct? Looks similar to that in the Melisende Psalter. fiveby(zero) 18:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this photo of the seal of Amalric at Dumbarton Oaks public domain? (Or is this photo of a different seal from doaks.org on Commons not really PD as claimed? Or maybe that user patiently went through the request process.) Edit: yes, I think you can upload that to Commons, assuming they photographed it in the US and it counts as two-dimensional. It is unfortunately worn-out and lacks details (such as a face) and the one that was in the auction house Is much nicer. Card Zero (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received the page from Bsoyka at WP:RX. I must say that exceeded my expectations. Unfortunately, there is no image at all on those pages. Instead the book seems to point to the same source in which Lambiam found last year's seal: this book. I do not see Amalric's seal there, however. The only seal of a patriarch I see is that of William of Malines (though that too would be worth uploading). Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not familiar with the subject matter here, but definitely reach out if I can try to provide any other book scans or other resources. I can access millions of items in some way or another, and I'm always happy to share them.) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the auction house that sold the fine quality seal is Swiss, wouldn't their photo be public domain? Card Zero (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Card_Zero, as far as I know, seals are considered three-dimensional and so any photograph of a seal counts as an original work of art. At least that is why Wikimedia Commons is so severely lacking in seals and we have to resort to 19th-century hand-drawn reproductions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Korean war

Norway–Russia border says this:

Yet the Russia–Norway border is the only one of Russia's borders where an open war between the two bordering countries has not taken place.

The next sentence goes on to exclude the Petsamo–Kirkenes offensive, between Russia and German soldiers on site during the Second World War, so clearly it's talking about the current country rather than past occupiers.

Has there ever been open warfare between Russia and North Korea, or between Russia and Korea before 1945? (There is no Russo-Korean War article.) Not knowing much about the geography of the region, I'm unsure whether anything in the Russo-Japanese War article covers this border (even if Japanese control of Korea is treated differently from German control of Norway), and basically all I know about the war is naval anyway. The Soviet–Japanese War article likewise doesn't convey much to me, aside from the fact that the conflict was largely in Manchuria and Pacific islands; all I can see in Korea is related to invasion from Manchuria and an amphibious assault that didn't involve the border zone. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet forces began amphibious landings in Korea by 14 August [1945] and rapidly took over the northeast of the country, and on 16 August they landed at Wonsan. from Division of Korea#Liberation, confusion, and conflict. However, Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945. Alansplodge (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, no, Soviet forces didn't cross the border against the Japanese in 1945. What about at any time outside the Japanese suzerainty? Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Russia having any wars with Belarus, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan... Was there "an open war" with the USA on the Chukotka-Alaska border? In any case, Nordsletten hardly qualifies as an authority on Russian history. Ghirla^-трёп- 19:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of those countries were part of the Imperial Russian empire, so I assume they were conquered by force at some point. It depends how much continuity you assume between modern Russia and it's Tsarist predecessor, and those states and whoever was governing that region in the past. Chuntuk (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Mongolia was never a part of the Russian Empire. Neither Kazakhstan nor Belarus were "conquered by force". In effect, Nordsletten's odd claim is a just another black legend about Russia (which en.wiki has been inundated with). Ghirla^-трёп- 21:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Soviet intervention in Mongolia#Soviet invasion of Mongolia in 1921? Not quite a straight conflict between Russia as such and Mongolia as such, but not far short, and on or around their mutual border. [Disclaimer: I have no personal interest in any of this, merely in maintaining Wikipedia's accuracy.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Battles of Khalkhin Gol were a major Soviet-Japanese conflict over Mongolia. And the author of File:Caricature for Riga Peace 1921.png would probably dispute with you about force being used to establish Soviet control of Belarus. AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this qualify as "an open war between the two bordering countries"? I still see no evidence of a war between Russia and Mongolia on the current border, between Russia and Belarus, between Russia and USA (on the Far Eastern border), between Russia and Lithuania on their current border, etc. In other words, the article's statement is fake. Ghirla^-трёп- 00:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Russo-Japanese War was largely fought around and about Korea, and there was fighting such as the Battle of the Yalu River on the Korean border. The battles were not fought at the small modern Russian-Korean border, though. There was fighting between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan in 1938 at the Battle of Lake Khasan, very near the triple point between Russia, China, and North Korea, although not quite on the Russian-North Korean portion. --Amble (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Indian princely state

Suzerainty#India refers to a tiny state of Babri, "with a population of 27 people and annual revenue of 80 rupees". Do we have an article on it anywhere? Babri redirects to Babri Masjid, a mosque at the centre of a long-running politico-religious controversy in India; Babri (state) doesn't exist; and Special:Search/Babri mostly contains references to the Babri Masjid with a few random other things like Helvijs Babris. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were many hundreds of princely states, 485 in Western India States Agency alone, and as that article says some were little more than villages or farms. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea there were so many tiny ones; I figured most princely states were on the level of Faridkot or Bussahir at least. How didn't the tiny ones get conquered and amalgamated centuries earlier? Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the very small ones were early John Company grants to local tax-gatherers and the like, that never got tidied up. If the right tax or tribute was paid, and no real trouble arose, there wasn't any real imperative to change things. The source used for Babri in the Suzerainty article looks like it's quoting another work, but I don't know which one. I don't know of a definitive list, I suspect you could work your way through the articles in Category:Agencies of British India, but even then I doubt we name them all. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I figured it would be in the Company's best interests and the Mughal emperors' best interests to mediatise little states — fewer states with imperial immediacy means less bureaucracy to deal with all your subject states, and fewer subject rulers who can cause local problems for you — so I assumed that little states were left over from tumultuous times in the past. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But lots of little states, especially if they are rivals to one another, are less of a threat to your ongoing control than a few big ones would be. Divide and conquer, as they say. Chuntuk (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend -- there were a lot of tiny estates of Imperial Knights in the Holy Roman empire, until the Napoleonic wars caused a consolidation. AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small print-sly state. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i double over 130.74.58.20 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Looking for article about gullibility of conservatives

Today I came across a scholarly paper about how US conservatives are more susceptible to believing falsehoods than non-conservatives, and then to my surprise I found other reliable sources providing in-depthreporting on this phenomenon — enough sources to establish notability for the topic.

Because the studies have been out for a few years, I thought I'd find a Wikipedia article about it, but I can't find one. I would be surprised if it hasn't been written yet, so I suspect I'm searching for the wrong thing. Do we have such an article, or should I start drafting one? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to add such material to the Conservatism article itself, both to have it vetted by the community, and because it will get read a lot more there. That article already has a section on Psychology with subsections Conscientiousness, Disgust sensitivity, Authoritarianism, Ambiguity intolerance, Social dominance orientation, and Happiness. Abductive (reasoning) 03:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's a broad-subject article, and this topic of gullibility seems to be restricted to the United States, not conservatives in general. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a Conservatism in the United States article that you could consider. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even really traditional philosophical conservatives, it's conspiratorial populists (some would say pseudo-populists) who are inheritors of the traditions discussed in the classic book The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter. AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of studies is about:

First, finding out the correlation between level of conservativeness (of a person) and how (he or she is) susceptible to believing falsehoods. In the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States, it mentioned “American conservatism is a large and mainstream ideology in the Republican Party and nation”. But the ideology is not a single dimension concept, how to measure ideology is difficult and different ways to measure ideology may give different results. Moreover, it is even more difficult to measure believing. There are many existing scales to measure believing, but none of them is comprehensive. Also, the world is not black and white, it is difficult to measure falsehoods.

Second, establishing the causal relationship is also difficult. Given that you can successfully establish the correlation, how can you prove that the causality is not a reverse, i.e. people who are more susceptible to believing falsehoods tend to being conservatives.

Therefore, I doubt whether there is a credible scholarly paper about this topic. But I think if you can sort out the definition and measurement problems, and you can establish the causal relationship in a convincing way, it could be a good research. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it will be much easier to find references discussing how political extremists (on both sides) are more gullible. It isn't just politics. Religious extremists are more gullible. Racists extremists are more gullible. Gender rights extremists are more gullible. My personal opinion is that being gullible leads to becoming an extremist, but I am sure thare are many cases of brainwashing that lead to gullibility. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a young man many years ago. It came up that he was a Marine and I said that he didn't talk or act like a Marine. He said that the Marine attitude is forced through standard brainwashing techniques in boot camp, but if you know what the methods are and you know they are being used on you, they aren't very effective. So, another way to phrase that is if you are not gullible about the situation you are in, brainwashing attempts by other extremeists are less effective. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is much easier to establish a link between extremists and gullibility. Also, brainwashing plays a key role. But I’m not sure what affects what. Are extremists more gullible or it is easier to turn gullible people into extremists? However, there is no doubt that brainwashing is an important moderating variable that affects the strength of the link between extremists and gullibility. Stanleykswong (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with you that if a person knows about what brainwashing methods can be used on him/her, brainwashing will be less effective. The question is how to collect data for a robust scholarly research. Stanleykswong (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is outside my realm as a reference librarian. I can give observations. I have observed multiple times that many scientists do not consider psychology to be science because you cannot do proper scientific research. In this specific case, there is no scientific measure of gullibility. There is no scientific measure of extremism. First, you need multiple publications to agree to a metric of each one. Then, you can get data to work with. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234 ~Anachronist (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching. I found opinion pieces. I don't trust those. I found multiple psychology articles that basically state that there is no correlation between being conservative and being biased (gullible) more than what is observed in liberals. There are more articles in recent times that tend to refer to modern politics as "post-truth." I haven't found anything remotely scientific. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is a reply to mine but it suggests that you didn't read the paper I linked. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paper used a very interesting research method. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, this topic has been an interest of mine for about 25 years, or at least since Gore lost the election to Bush. I've gone back and forth, sometimes agreeing with it, and other times disagreeing with it. Weighing all the available evidence, I am forced to conclude that this observation is probably not supported all that much. The real turning point for me was seeing how easily pandemic misinformation spread in liberal communities formerly associated with democrats, and the simple truth is that we all know gullible liberals who believe in crystal nonsense. So to conclude, this is not a problem endemic to conservatives, as much as I would like to personally believe it is. It's a problem unique to all of humanity. Think about it. Reagan won by a similar landslide in 1980, and you had millions of liberals who got suckered into his morning in America nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gullibility is not a problem endemic to conservatives or democrats. This is a problem endemic to some people across the political spectrum.

I think studying how misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination contributes to people’s refusal of vaccination is a potential research topic. Finding the percentage of people who refused vaccination because of misinformation across different positions on the political spectrum will help us understand what kind of people are more gullible to misinformation. Stanleykswong (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, I saw articles referring to it as a "Republican" disease, because more Republicans were dying from it than Democrats, Republicans were least likely to be vaccinated, and most likely to buy into the nonsense (which Trump helped promote) about "safer" alternatives and the conspiracies behind the vaccine. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but I think the reason was because conservatives have highly sophisticated information distribution networks, whereas Democrats have almost none except for mainstream media which tends to lean center to center right. And yes, more conservatives in red states died due to this disinformation network. But there was still a huge problem with liberal communities accepting and promulgating COVID-19 misinformation, and this was an active area of research when it came to a phenomenon known as conspirituality, liberal to left-wing communities that were targeted with right-wing propaganda. The number of articles describing this controversy in yoga communities, for example, is well worth the read. It's a fascinating subject that illustrates how disinformation and propaganda can infect any community. Here on Maui, we saw this happen in real time after the wildfires in 2023. The entire population of Hawaii was targeted by foreign state actors with disinformation accusing liberals and Democrats of "attacking" Maui to push Hawaiians out of their homes and promote green cities.[3] This disinformation was then intentionally echoed at the highest levels of the GOP, reinforcing the message that natural disasters are caused by liberals. Keep in mind, this is not a new thing. The GOP had been doing this for decades, often blaming devastating tornadoes on homosexuality and abortion.[4] When Tucker Carlson returned from his trip to Russia, he began using the same old playbook, blaming powerful US hurricanes on abortion, not climate change.[5] The thing that was different about the Hawaii wildfires, is that propaganda researchers traced much of the messaging to Chinese and Russian sites, who appeared to be working closely with members of the GOP in congress to coordinate their talking points. The idea that autocrats and authoritarians, particularly those who are part of BRIC countries, have infiltrated the Republican Party through Trump, the NRA,[6] and members of the larger Koch network and associated religious groups such as the Council for National Policy, is no longer a conspiracy theory, but well established. The US is just months away from dismantling NATO and becoming closer allies with Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. If you tell conservatives this, they often have a response: "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat."[7] Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know the research method the article was using, but without a sound research method, for example using education, religion and gender as control variables, the term "Republican" disease may not be a fair statement. A proper study with valid and reliable findings needs to minimize biases and errors. It is likely that other factors, such as education, religion and gender make them more susceptible to misinformation and have a high chance to die of COVID-19. So a study to find out the influence of political spectrum on susceptibility to misinformation needs to “control” those factors. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

About a possible English language article for Egyptian poet Samir Darwish?

Hello all,

Copied from this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt.

Yo no hablo árabe - aiuto, per favor.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking @Shirt58. As usual in a volunteer project, the best (and nearly the only) way to get somebody else to work on a particular article is to engage somebody's interest - and that is most likely to be somebody who already has some interest in the topic. So the WikiProject, where you've already asked, seems more likely to find somebody than posting here. ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can request an article on the poet at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature § Authors (poets, novelists and fiction writers). Be sure to include a reference to the article on the Arabic Wikipedia. --Lambiam 08:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Childe Hassam "California" (1919)

There's a painting on Commons and elsewhere that says it's by American Impressionist Childe Hassam named California, and is said to have been dated to 1919. It was apparently auctioned by Christie's in 2017.[8] But I'm curious where in California this depiction is supposed to be from as it doesn't ring any bells. Hassam was known to stylize his paintings such that they would deviate from actual representations, most notably in his depiction of Point Lobos in 1914, where another artist voiced a complaint about this style. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I can find have Hassam in and around San Francisco, but the painting does not look like the Bay Area. The foreground scene looks like the shore of Lake Tahoe, but the mountain peak does not. It looks more like Shasta or Lassen if anything. The bountiful harvest stacked up by the shore suggests it's more idealized than a real place. --Amble (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shasta does seem more likely, but even Shasta doesn't look like that. I know Tahoe like the back of my hand, and that isn't it. I've only visited Lassen once, and I think that could be it. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is much less representational than most of Hassam's work and reminds me a bit of an illustration for a children's book, but it does bear a certain resemblance to this photo of Lake Helen and Mount Lassen. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the possibility that it might be Mount Shasta, I doubt it. The classic lake view of Shasta is from Lake Siskiyou, and from that angle, the secondary peak Shastina is clearly visible to the left, resulting in in the memorable and distinctive double humped skyline. Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassam did travel extensively in Oregon and Washington several years before he visited California, and he painted Hood and Saint Helens at least. I wonder if he may have drawn on those for his idealized California. —Amble (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re right. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

Does anyone know where the White House YT channel gets their orchestral background music from?

Do they compose it themselves or is it merely licensed from a third party? I cannot find anything about this Trade (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to it. It sounds incredibly simple and basic, probably requiring a single computer workstation and a keyboard. In the clip you provide, you can hear a few notes/chords, and some effects. It's not a big deal and takes about 20 minutes to put together if you know what you're doing. Your confusion arises from thinking this is some kind of live orchestra. It's not. It's pretty obvious it's one person and a keyboard making those sounds. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

Block evasion.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

It was founded in Hyuga, Miyazaki Prefecture, in 1918, but relocated to Saitama in 1939 due a dam's construction. What is that dam's name?

The German article gives coordinates that places the village next to Kawabaru Dam. --Wrongfilter (talk)

ok, thank you.

Turkey bone

What happens when an American president-elect chokes to death on a turkey bone on Christmas Day, before inauguration in January, while he is still an ordinary citizen? The vice president-elect is still an ordinary citizen, too.

Since the president-elect is not a sitting president, then a president has not died therefore the vice president-elect cannot succeed a non-president?

Any resemblance in this question to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. Only the turkey is real. Spideog (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spideog, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that if the president-elect dies before inauguration day, the vice president-elect gets sworn in instead. The issue is precisely when the winner legally becomes president-elect. One could argue that would be January 6 when Congresss certifies the electoral vote count. On the other hand, presidential transition legislation kicks in pretty early, and I read that Trump's transition team signed a lease for office space with the GSA today. Here is a relevant GSA press release.

See Second presidential transition of Donald Trump and United States presidential transition. Were Trump to die on Christmas Day, I suspect that there might be some legal maneuvering but I am pretty confident that JD Vance would be sworn in on January 20, 2025. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you for your reply. Had I anyone actually in mind, your reply could have dashed my hopes, however, for legal reasons, "only the turkey is real". Spideog (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect of the United States notes that the US Code has a term for an individual in Trump's and Vance's current positions, "apparent successful candidates", given the need for months of transition. However, Trump hasn't actually been elected president yet — theoretically, there's nothing preventing all the Republican electors voting for Vance-Trump instead of Trump-Vance — so at the minimum, his special status for succession purposes doesn't start until the actual election in mid-December. Were he to die before then, the 1872 United States presidential election has a precedent, although it had no practical effect because the deceased candidate in that election was analogous to Harris, not Trump. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there's nothing preventing all the Republican electors voting for Vance-Trump instead of Trump-Vance" - Except a multitude of state laws that require the electors to vote as pledged. So, I believe that you mean there is nothing preventing the states to re-pledge the electors to vote Vance-Trump, except a multitude of state laws requiring the state to enforce the votes of the citizens. So, it isn't really as simple as saying "Let's change our mind at the last minute." In the end, it will be a lot of money spent on lawyers and likely even larger payoffs to politicians to get to the end result everyone expects. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format of US congressional committee testimony

Whenever I see older pictures of congressional committee testimony, the members are just sitting around a table with the person who's testifying; the physical format is very different from today, when the members all sit in a long line or two, facing the speaker who sits at a table or stands at a podium in front of the centre of the line of members. When did this change, and why? I'm guessing that the "why" is related to television news (the members all know each other and don't need the "Mr Soandso" signs, but they're useful for TV viewers; maybe the viewer-friendly format is meant for casual viewers too), but no idea when. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Army-McCarthy hearings were probably the first to be intensively televised (as far as that was possible in 1954), and from what I can tell from searching in Google Images, used the table format... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A film about the 1957–1959 hearings of the McClellan Committee shows the testifying witnesses sitting at a separate witness table, facing a large oval table at which the committee members are seated on one side. At the Fulbright hearings of 1966, a clip such as that of the testimony of General James Gavin show the witness likewise seated at a separate table, facing a semicircular structure behind which the committee members are seated, with Fulbright in the middle. --Lambiam 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Leg Day

In anything American, I keep coming across "Leg Day". There is no article on it so what is it? Is it just a fancy name for exercise? Is it a sports day? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it's a term from weight training. Many people let muscle groups rest for a day or so after training them, before doing it again. Some people who want to do weights more than every other day might set up a cycle where they do, say, an upper-body workout one day, then lower-body the next day, and the latter would be leg day.

I am not saying this is a good idea or a bad idea; this is just my understanding of what it means.

The article that would most naturally cover such a plan, at a quick look, would be sports periodization, but I do not see it covered there. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has a lot of gym-faring friends, I can confirm that it's exactly this. It's a day for focusing specifically on leg exercises. GalacticShoe (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please create an article on it? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course would to have it redirect to split weight training. GalacticShoe (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the joke. The reason "leg day" has currency is because it's mostly used as a joke to poke fun at people who forget to do their legs when they are seeing so much results in their upper body. So a lot of times you see people with massive arms and bulging chests, but little stick legs. I don't think we need a separate article on the joke, but something should be said about "skipping leg day" in the primary topic articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then that needs to be in an article too! HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On average the majority of muscle mass is in the lower body.[9] One way to increase muscle mass is to "train to failure".[10] If you only fail once you are not fatiguing all your motor units. You begin with heavy weights and exercise till failure. Decrease the resistance and go again. Repeat. Again. During this time all the fun products of anaerobic exercise are building up in your muscle tissue and lots of microtraumas are happening which you will feel the next day. Try it. Then you'll know what "leg day" means. fiveby(zero) 02:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us are going to do that. Please write an article! HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is know-that. Can't transfer know-of to another. fiveby(zero) 03:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split weight training is another option. Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see in the notes above that leg day refers to a tough day because a proper leg day workout is more tiring than other workouts. In other words, it is day people tend to hate more. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

“marrying the state” instead of the father of their children

Hello to many helpers. In the book "The better angels of our nature" by Steven PINKER that I've just finished reading in a French translation. I found a strange phrase. Here is the full sentence translated by Deepl from the French translation : "This trend, already visible in the early 1960s, may have been greatly amplified by the sexual revolution, then by the perverse effects of certain social policies encouraging young women to “marry the state” instead of the father of their children.
My question is : What means "MARRY THE STATE" in the USA? I thank you for your help. Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Aid to Families with Dependent Children, particularly the sections Man-in-the-house rule and Criticism. --Amble (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Marrying the State” refers to the idea that an unwed mother, getting welfare benefits for her children, will remain unwed - due to fear that she will no longer qualify for those benefits if she gets married. Thus, she will choose the welfare system (the State) over having a husband. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original English text: "This trend, already visible in the early 1960s, may have been multiplied by the sexual revolution and yet again by perverse welfare incentives that encouraged young women to "marry the state" instead of the fathers of their children.^[11] --Lambiam 23:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Mixed-handed fencing duels

In a famous duel film scene, for a brief time the opponents fight with different hands. But does history know actual (possibly deadly) fencing duels between right-handers and left-handers? If so, is there any evidence which hand has an advantage? I would assume the edge is on the left-handers' side, as they were certainly trained to fight with right-handers - but not that usually vice-versa. --KnightMove (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear advantage to left-handed fencers (and boxers). It is believed to be, as you stated, a frequency issue. Less than 10% of fencers are believed to be left-handed. So, right-handed fencers rarely get practice against left-handed fencers, but left-handed fencers compete with right-handed fencers most of the time. As proof, nearly 25% of the top-rated fencers are left-handed. So, they are over-represented. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related trivia: Tua Tagovailoa is right-handed. He plays football left-handed. His father pushed him to throw left-handed at a young age because it gives him an advantage. For the opposing team, the "strong side" and "weak side" are flipped and, theoretically, they make more mistakes. You can claim that this offense has to play a flipped field, but they practice that way every day, so it isn't unusual for them. It is only a problem if Tua can't play and the backup (a right-handed passer) has to step in. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinked the player's name above for those interested in following it up. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacancies/vacant sees

According to our article List of bishops in the Church of England there are six vacant sees, Ely, Carlisle, Truro, Coventry, Durham, and Worcester. Has there ever been a time when more have been vacant at the same time? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James II wanted to get rid of Seven Bishops, though events prevented him, and six bishops were removed a few years later in 1691 for refusing to declare allegiance to William III. Also, near the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign "Seven bishops, including Cardinal Pole, Mary's Archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1558 and needed to be replaced", while the surviving bishops were Catholic, and were displaced (except two). AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You win. I reckon it peaked at twenty vacant sees between 5 July and 14 July 1559. --Antiquary (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does your interest extend to pre-Reformation English bishops? Our less scrupulous medieval kings liked to keep sees vacant for as long as they could get away with it because they could pocket the revenues. By my reckoning, from 8 July to 5 October 1214 King John kept Carlisle, Chichester, Coventry, Durham, Exeter, Rochester, Worcester and York vacant – eight in all. I don't know if that's any kind of record. --Antiquary (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was as simple as that. Pope Innocent III interfered with the appointment of bishops, placing John under an interdict. 2A00:23D0:72D:8E01:70A8:F213:EE38:5671 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used to pray at intercession in church at Sunday communion for Peter Ball when he was bishop of Gloucester, so I'm recusing myself from this discussion. MinorProphet (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generative deity names

I don't know of a satisfying etymology for Priapus, has anyone suggested a connection to Prajapati? Temerarius (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Prajapati states that (according to Robert Graves) the name is etymologically equivalent to that of Phanes. While I'm not quite sure what this statement means, our article Phanes mentions that in the Orphic Hymns he is given the title "Lord Priapos". --Lambiam 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Sanskrit "j" generally corresponds to an Indo-European (and Greek) "g", so I don't see how that enables a connection to Priapus. Also, the "-pati" part of Prajapati contains the same IE root as in the well-known Greek term potnia, but the second "p" of Priapus is certainly not part of such a root... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

sites like nationalmap.gov, to search for e.g. all streams named "brook"

On nationalmap.gov, you can search for (e.g.) any US places with "deer" in their name (and you will find that there are towns, valleys, streams, etc), or any waterfalls in California with "rainbow" in their name. Logainm.ie appears to function somewhat similarly for Irish place names. Does anyone know of an equivalent for the UK, France, or Germany? A quick search finds me some sites where you can look up any towns in the UK with "deer" (etc) in their names, but I don't just want to search town names, I want to be able to search place names of all types.
(If you know of equivalents for any other countries, feel free to mention them, too!) -sche (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can query OpenStreetMap data; see [12], for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found British placename mapper. It returned surprisingly few results for deer, but two were streets and another apparently a wood. Card Zero (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit) Some sources for the UK:

The Ordnance Survey has an Emergency Services Gazetteer; they charge for it, but there is some sort of free trial (limited area) on that web page.
The Association of British Counties maintains a Gazetteer of British Place Names
The National Library of Scotland hosts the GB1900 place name project gathered from OS 6"/mile maps between 1888 and 1913
BritishPlaceNames.uk combines data from a variety of sources
FamilySearch has a gazetteer (OK, a list) of gazetteers covering England

-- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata has a query interface that's very flexible and general (although we can't guarantee it is complete). Here's an example query searching for watercourses in the UK with "deer" in the name: [13]. It returns four entries: River Deer, Deer Burn, River Deerness, and Red-deer burn. --Amble (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But note, -sche (if it's relevant to your purpose – it may not be) that this will not find names with an element that originally meant 'deer' (as in this example) but are spelled differently, such as Dereham. {The poster formerly kown as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 14