This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

January 9

1798 United Irishmen rebellion

Did any of the American founding fathers have specific views on the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion in Ireland?

I know the Democratic-Republicans generally leaned toward France, so I wonder whether they supported the French aligned rebellion, or whether any of the Federalists said anything to oppose it.

By the way, please don't delete the reference desks.

I don't think I would be able to answer questions like this on my own.

Benjamin (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you commented at the page where it's being discussed?[1]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
American Revolution#Inspiring all colonies mentions the influence it had on the Irish Rebellion of 1798 with two sources which might have more information. If someone has more information on how the US reacted, it probably should be added there. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
A quick Google search found this at the Monticello site. John Adams blamed Irish support ("foreigners and degraded characters") for his defeat by Jefferson -- see "United Irishmen, United States. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Adams had a lot of good qualities, but unfortunately his rampant xenophobia (especially anti-Irish) and led to his championing the Alien and Sedition Acts during his presidency. It was opposition to those acts particularly (rather than the "Irish" as Irish) that led to his defeat, but as all Xenophobes do, they deflect blame for their own shortcomings on the foreigner-du-jour. Irish isn't specifically mentioned in that article, but they were definitely a target. See here for example, to wit "The two laws against aliens were motivated by fears of a growing Irish radical presence in Philadelphia." --Jayron32 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That premise sounds all too familiar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 12

murder rate

I was reading List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade and one statistic jumped out at me: the US murder rate quadrupled in just three years from 1904 to 1907. What could be some possible explanations for this jump? Mũeller (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Googling "murder rate increase between 1904 and 1907" yields a number of entries, including this one,[2] which suggests that changes in the collection of the data led to an apparent jump in the crime stats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help locating a famous painting

There was a print of a famous painting that hung over my wife's childhood bed that got lost in a move. She talks about it sometimes and I want to get a print for Valentine's Day but she can't remember what it was called. The painting was of a girl in a green dress on a park bench with some books in a leather strap. She thinks it was from the Louvre. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks, --B (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia has categories filled with paintings of women sitting on outdoor benches and paintings of females sitting on outdoor benches, some of them wearing green, or it might be Jeune fille dans un parc by Berthe Morisot (no books though). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Searching Google images for "painting park bench girl" turns up some possibilities. Bus stop (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help with a character

Donald Trump visiting Suresnes cemetery.jpg

Hello english team, I don't know if I ask on the good village. I need some help identifying the third character on the left after Donal Trump and William M. Matz. I read somewhere it is Superintendent Keith Stadler. But I'm not sure, due to his Linkedin Profile. Someone can help me please ? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpesenti (talkcontribs) 01:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If you click on the photo, the caption does indeed say it's Stadler. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • He’s pictured at a ceremony with Trump, implying that the picture was taken no earlier than January 2017, when Trump took office. But the article Keith J. Stalder#Biography says he retired in 2010, so assuming that’s the same person, he wouldn’t be doing that in 2017 or 2018. Loraof (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The gentleman in uniform next to Matz is Army Chaplain Timothy S. Mallard. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13

Britain's and France's attitudes towards decolonization on the eve of WWII

Does anyone here know what Britain's and France's attitudes towards decolonization were on the eve of World War II in 1939?

I know that WWII ushered in a grand era of decolonization and that Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany in order to protect Poland's independence, but I am wondering as to what Britain's and France's attitudes towards national self-determination for non-White peoples were at the start of WWII.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The classic statement of the British attitude was Churchill's in a 1942 speech-
"Let me, however, make this clear: we mean to hold our own. (Cheers) I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."John Z (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Although Churchill probably represented the most illiberal extreme of British political thought on the issue. The big idea of imperialism in the early 20th century was that by being under British administration, colonies would eventually (in the very distant future) develop into self-governing partners like Canada and Australia. In the meantime, they could be exploited for resources without any cost to the domestic tax-payer. During the 1930s, there was the realisation that social and economic development of the colonies needed to be funded by British government. Some reading:
Decolonisation in the way it actually happened was not really intentional, but became unavoidable after independence for India and Pakistan in 1947 (itself a failure of a policy of measured progress towards self-government, the Government of India Act 1935) - see Governing Africa: the Imperial Mind in British Colonies, 1938-1947, in the light of Indian Experience by Alan Cousins.
Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Empirically, Britain had a much more, erm, friendly attitude towards its colonies which had substantial White populations. It had notably granted dominion status or responsible government to several colonies prior to World War II, those being Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and Ireland. They all have something in common... --Jayron32 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that racism wasn't a big factor, but by the end of the First World War, all of those that you mentioned could be described as developed economies, whereas many (particularly African) colonies were a long way from having the wherewithal to successfully make their way in the world. The obvious remedy for the the paternalistic mindset of the time was continued colonial administration. Dominion status for South Africa and Ireland (which was part of the UK and not a colony) were the result of peace treaties to end wars and not part of any intentional policy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"Developed" vs. "Undeveloped" is also because of racism. Why did the British Empire feel the importance of developing the Canadian and Australian economies to the point where the countries could support responsible government, whereas in other places they did not? To say "countries with less white people were less developed" is not an accident. There was a deliberate difference in how the colonizing power treated different colonies, and that had a DIRECT impact on the economic development of those countries. The British government also set the criteria for responsible government in a deliberately racist way "Do we have enough white people to run this country" was their yardstick. The fact that London also felt the need to invest economically in those colonies to develop them to the point that they could run themselves successfully was part of that attitude, not a coincidence. It's a feature, not a bug, of the racist colonial system. This article explains some of it quite well, and how a country like Britain decided which economies to industrialize, and which to keep extractive is why some colonies (the white ones) were ready for independence sooner. --Jayron32 13:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I would be grateful if someone can provide Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980) Lectures on Public Economics, Mc-Graw Hill. Thanks in advance --Abhinav619 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Abhinav619, you need to ask this at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Palestine did not exist before it was called Palestine

In German:

Auf Ihrer Seite zu Kaiser Hadrian steht:  []  
„Aus Iudaea wurde die Provinz Syria Palaestina  <[] . Hadrian bewertete  den schließlichen Sieg so hoch, dass er im Dezember 135 die zweite  imperatorische Akklamation entgegennahm; doch verzichtete er auf einen  Triumph <[] .

Das ist meines Wissens korrekt. Deshalb heißt es, dass der Begriff „Palästina“ erst seit 135 n.Chr.


Doch Ihre Seite []

Beginnt mit dem Satz: „Das römische Palästina bestand von 63 v. Chr. 
bis etwa 634 n. Chr.“

Ich sehe da einen Widerspruch. 
Geschichtsklitterung ist sehr problematisch. Im Jahr 63 v.Chr. gab es noch kein „Palästina“, weder römisch noch anders.

Bei deutschen Themen würden Sie wahrscheinlich umsichtiger formulieren und aus „Germanen“ weder „Deutsche“ noch „Bundesbürger“ machen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulrichsahm (talkcontribs) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Wrong venue - discussions about articles on the German language Wikipedia need to take place on the German language Wikipedia. It is a separate project with different policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hallo Ulrichsahm, leider können wir Ihnen hier (englischer Wikipedia) nicht helfen. Bitte stellen Sie Ihrer Frage in der deutschen Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Auskunft. (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't ABC nor CBS make a major cable news channel like Fox News and MSNBC?

Is the different flavors of CNN market already full? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, CBS has CBSN and ABC once had Satellite News Channel. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
News has become very competitive worldwide. You can watch Bloomberg, Al Jazeera or Sky News life 24/7 for free on youtube. I wouldnt invest a cent in a new news company. --Kharon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the later article mentions plans, which were abandoned after Fox News and MSNBC, to launch a new 24 hour news channel. It also mentions they did eventually launch another 24 hour news channel ABC News Now which lasted much longer than SNC but also ultimately failed. Finally it mentions that they do still have Fusion TV although it's somewhat different from other attempts. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
ABC News recently launched a 24/7 live streaming service called ABC News Live. It seems that they have realized (like everyone else soon will) that cable and broadcast TV is a slowly dying industry, and that most people in the U.S. are moving towards streaming services like Roku, Hulu, Netflix, etc. So they DO have a 24-hour news service. They just haven't put it on the cable or satellite platforms. It's available online and through streaming services. --Jayron32 12:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14


Is this image in copyright? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

About when was it taken and when was the book published? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
And was it a work of the US government? (Both the photo and the place you found it.) -- (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. If it's a US government work, it could be public domain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems as if was published in Infantry (magazine) in 1947 which is published by the United States Army Infantry School, so it's a work of the US government for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}. On the other hand, per the Copyright Act of 1909, such publications might contain works that are copyrighted. In this case, there is no copyright notice on the image, so it should fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for expert input. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure that (publisher) was valid in 1947? The magazine in question explicitly says in several different places:

The Infantry Journal is published monthly by Infantry Journal, Incorporated, Publication date: 25th of proceeding month. Publication, Editorial, and Executive Offices: The Infantry Building, 1115 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington 6, D. C. Copyright, 1947, by U. S. Infantry Association.

(See [4] or [5] [6] [7]. There are also 2 other copyright notices for other works but not that photo or at least not that came up in the Google OCRed search.) IANAL, this isn't legal advice etc, but this seems to me to be a potentially valid copyright notice for the whole publication. I don't know details about the U. S. Infantry Association and it's possible a lot of the work, especially the photos are actually PD-USGov, but I would be cautious about such assumptions with a lot more analysis. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
See also [8] which explicitly notes that copyright was renewed in some cases. Also, I'm not convinced it's the same publication as that discussion in our article. That source suggests it ended in 1950. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15

Presidents and curse words

When was the first time the sitting POTUS used the word fuck and the general public found out during his presidency?

What was the first word you can't currently say on TV to be used that way? (scripted US broadcast television, not cable obviously).

If that word was a racial slur (some presidents were literally slaveowners after all), what was the first that wasn't?

What about using damn and hell in a way that has been considered religiously objectionable? (like damn the torpedoes, go to hell, or after stubbing your toe) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The first time it became a big issue in modern times was when the transcriptions of the Watergate tapes were released with frequent "expletive deleted" substitutions. See article Expletive deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Harry Truman was famous for using relatively mild (by today's standards) vulgarisms to refer to his political opponents. LBJ was known for his colorful language too. But those guys had some discretion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
[9]. It's like you guys aren't even trying. That's only a short smattering of presidential curse words, but we have a quote of Lincoln saying "shit" publicly, and one of Andrew Jackson's parrot trained to curse, and often having to be removed from places because of that. So take your pick. It's either as early as Lincoln, or Andrew Jackson's parrot. --Jayron32 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Jackson's parrot wasn't the POTUS, although it would have been a substantial improvement over the current one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Jackson owned the one parrot, while the current guy has surrounded himself with parrots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The hard part of this question is the "found out during his presidency" part. Because they have ALL used foul language, all the way back to Washington. --M@rēino 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Which national movements were very weak before WWI but got their own state later on?

Which national movements were very weak before World War I but got their own state later on?

For instance, I can think of Belarus and the various countries of Central Asia eventually acquiring independence in spite of the fact that their people don't appear to have had much of a national consciousness in the pre-WWI era. Likewise, the Zionist movement doesn't appear to have been a particularly large one before WWI--with most Jews who left Eastern Europe before WWI moving to places other than Palestine. Still, the Zionist movement ultimately succeeded--as did the Muslim nationalist movement in British India with the creation of Pakistan.

Which other national movements didn't have much strength in the pre-WWI era but were ultimately successful later on--either as a result of their own efforts or as a result of external forces/actors intervening and supporting their cause (whether on purpose or accidentally)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Many former Ottoman states, especial countries like Iraq, only exist today at their current borders because of the way the remnants of the Ottoman Empire were carved up by European powers as League of Nations mandates. The concept of an "Iraqi nation" only exists because that land, and those people, were put together after WWI, just as one example. You could also look at some other post-colonial states, who's borders were arbitrarily based on European colonial borders, and who are in the process of forging a single national identity, to various degrees of success. --Jayron32 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some countries--such as Iraq--were indeed creations of Western colonial powers. I was well-aware of this. The reason that I didn't mention this in my OP was that while ideas such as Iraqi nationalism, Jordanian nationalism, et cetera didn't exist before World War I, the broader idea of Arab nationalism did, in fact, exist even before World War I. Our article about Arab nationalism talks about this--as does our article about the Arab Congress of 1913.
It's probably a similar story for Africa. While specific nationalism--such as Nigerian nationalism--might not have existed in the pre-World War I era, there were nevertheless nationalistic movements in Africa which resisted the European conquest of their lands. For instance, you could take a look at the Sokoto Caliphate's unsuccessful war against the British to preserve their independence.
What I am looking for here are nationalist movements for future nation-states--as in, states which are meant for a specific ethnic or ethno-religious group. The multi-ethnic states of the Middle East and Africa often wouldn't qualify for this. Futurist110 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16

What's preventing passenger airships from coming back?

Helium prices? Inability to make H2 safe? Time to recoup vehicle cost? If they came back would bigger than Hindenberg (up to a point) offer economy of scale for some routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For passenger use, the fact that speeds would be significantly lower than that of jet planes is a problem. There have been a number of experiments with Hybrid airships for cargo use... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If tickets can be made cheaper than jets without making it too crowded then pensioners who don't need to be anywhere anytime soon might want a go. Whether there's enough travel value seekers with a lot of time on their hands I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless it was shown there is a niche in the market that passengers would fill at super premium prices, I don't see that the development costs could ever be paid back. And I don't think you ever get past the Hindenburg.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince consort and Queen consort

Why is the term Prince consort often used for a husband of a reigning queen, but Queen consort usually used for a wife of a reigning king? JACKINTHEBOXTALK 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 16#Prince Consort. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)