Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

February 2

Judge Joe Bob

Won't name names but some of you might find it obvious who this is. Federal district court in eastern Texas, Judge Joe Bob presiding. Plaintiff files a certain bogus suit, case is litigated, Joe Bob decides in plaintiff's favor because he always does in disputes of this type. His decision is overturned on appeal. That's overturned I tell you, binding precedent with a capital B.

Nonetheless, another case comes in that's almost the same, but Joe Bob finds a little detail that's different enough to decide in favor of the plaintiff again. Result: this decision overturned too.

Another one or two of these go by, with the circuit court opinions basically saying "god damn it Joe Bob, we thought we explained this already, decision is reversed AGAIN". They create some new rule to allow defendants to get the venue changed out of Joe Bob's court on the slightest pretext. Joe Bob likes him some plaintiffs, so he finds ways to deny these change of venue motions, and those denials get appealed and overturned too, at least some of the time.

This has been going on for something like 15 years with the same judge. Plaintiffs bend over backwards to get their cases into his court.

Short of the FBI catching plaintiffs bringing suitcases full of cash into Joe Bob's chambers, what kinds of mechanisms exist for dealing with this? You would think Joe Bob might get more enjoyment from being a plaintiff attorney, but he's an Article III judge, appointed for life, and he seems to like it that way.

I'm not seeking legal advice, I'm just an amused but dismayed onlooker to some of these cases, and am wondering if there is really a hole in the system going on here. Thanks all. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I find conflicting statements from sources that look authoritative:

• "Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate." ["The Judicial Branch". obamawhitehouse.archives.gov]
• "Contrary to the orthodoxy, nothing in the Constitution mandates that impeachment be the exclusive method for removing misbehaving judges." [Saikrishna Prakash & Steven D. Smith. "Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment". The Yale Law Journal ]

Given the explicit contradiction of the "orthodox view" – which seems to apply to Article III judges and thus to the Honourable Judge Joe Bob – I am inclined to trust the latter position. Nevertheless, if I understand the learned article correctly, there are no current other statutes allowing the removal of judges for judicial misbehaviour.  --Lambiam 10:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "could" and "have"; much of the law is based on legal precedent; coulds don't become cans unless they become haves. Which is to say that while Congress could create some alternate mechanisms to remove federal judges (such as some kind of independent review board or tribunal) it never has. Of all of the federal judges to ever be removed from office, 100% of them have gone through the impeachment process. --Jayron32 18:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of impeachment as a remedy for this judge. The FBI finding him taking payoffs was hypothetical. In reality I don't think he has really done anything I could call a high crime or misdemeanor. He has a judicial and legal philosophy that tilts to the advantage of certain types of litigants, which is to say he's a biased judge, to the point of having achieved a measure of fame and (mostly negative) notability for it. But, appointing biased judges and getting them confirmed has always been one of the spoils of politics. It just usually shows up in more partisan or social types of issues, rather than in a particular area of business disputes.

So, I was really asking if there is a way to say "enough" once a judge has been overturned enough times in a particular area, e.g. the equivalent of a Wikipedia editor getting a topic ban. Judges hear all sorts of cases and idk if this guy has known probs in other than one particular area. He just really really likes a certain interpretation of a particular law, so he is in the habit of overstretching it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

On matters of interpretation of law, judges are not normally (read: ever) sanctioned or removed from office. The prerogative of the party in power is to be able to appoint judges that will interpret the law a certain way; that is not a bug, it's a feature of the system. "Bias" generally just means "people who think differently than I do", and I'm afraid that's not sanctionable. --Jayron32 12:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. I had hoped that the long series of appellate reversals could be said to indicate something. Oh well. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It mostly just means the appellate judges were nominated to their position by a president from the other party. Very little of American life in the 21st century is based on greater principles than base tribalism. --Jayron32 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see that for some kinds of controversies, but this guy's particular hobby horse is not really partisan. Everyone seems to think that he gets it wrong. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

West Berlin population size 1949 -1989

Is there a population chart for West Berlin, excluding East Berlin, between 1945 (or 1949) and 1989? I just need total population, not age or gender demographics. --Lgriot (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything directly, but Census in Germany lists a number of censuses done in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) during the years of division. That may give you some leads. --Jayron32 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This webpage is the Berlin-Brandenburg office of statistics. It is in the German language, but that may be another lead for you to follow. --Jayron32 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Try de:West-Berlin#Einwohnerentwicklung. The numbers with asterisks are census results. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you very much --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Need of closure for tasks

I am aware of Closure (psychology) , but this mostly is about "closing" a certain period in life, especially after difficulties. **Is there literature** about need for closure about tasks? For example I notice that if I (or others I talked with) have too many tasks open and we never finish a good chunk of those, the mental health gets affected, as if one feels unable to complete anything. Edit: it seems that people took this as mental issue, now it doesn't feel like it. I mean rather something in the direction of "closing/completing tasks helps the mood, having too many open doesn't". --Pier4r (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The inability to complete tasks is a known sign/symptom of a number of mental health conditions, this search turns up both Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and various kinds of executive function disorders. I would start my research with those disorders. --Jayron32 16:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Many executive function disorders are exhibited by the executive branches of democratic governments. Non-democratic governments have no disorders. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Completion bias? From this, first relevant hit from a web search about task completion. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding: quite a lot of literature came up when I tried “unfinished tasks” as the keyword. For example, a prof at University Trier has done a lot of studies on the correlation between unfinished work and sleep quality. Trying the opposite, “finished tasks” brings up papers on the effect on memory. And finally, the autocomplete also suggested the term “task closure theory” which seems to be mostly about the best ways to get people to keep using your apps. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --Pier4r (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's only a problem if you worry about it too much. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment and I suggest you withdraw it. We're talking about a mental health issue here. --Viennese Waltz 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, the OP's mental health issue, so it seems. If he's concerned, he should see a doctor, not fish for random opinions on the internet. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The OP was asking explicitly for literature about need for closure about tasks, not for "random opinions", and most definitely not for your snide comments. And yes, I do get angry. If you cannot constructively contribute, then at least show some respect for the people posting questions here.  --Lambiam 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to the editors who first raised the "mental health" subject. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry maybe I misworded the request, why my mental issues? The case was from work. Work comes in faster than we can process the tickets, that is the problem. When I (and colleagues) are able to finally close some tickets that were always postponed, it feels good. Conversely if we are unable to close "old" tickets because new pressing matters take precedence (it happens too often), we don't feel that good (at least I). Hence my question related to "is there any literature about this feeling good that comes from closing/completing tasks?". --Pier4r (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Human Condition, 1958, by Hannah Arendt - is basically about the idea of work - sorry, it's in labor- as a necessary way for feeling good. --Askedonty (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Pier4r (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What sprung to my mind is:

Oh Lord God, when thou givest to thy servant to endeavour any great matter, grant us to know that it is not the beginning but the continuing of the same, until it be thoroughly finished, which yieldeth the true glory. (Sir Francis Drake)

I don't suppose they teach children that sort of thing these days. Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Was that as he lay dying, i.e. "thoroughly finished"? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It was the "great matter" which was to be finished, not the writer. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are some links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].  --Lambiam 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Pier4r (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

February 3

British aristocracy vs Continental nobility

How did the British aristocracy (peers and their families) compared to continental nobility (either the reigning dukes and princes or the mediatized nobility with no power)? For example, would a member of the Howard or Berkeley family whose lines stretches back 900 years and whose family heads have have titles of earls and dukes for hundreds of years be considered of equal rank to a non-reigning member of the noble family of County of Neipperg post German mediatisation. 128.193.154.158 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there is a similarity in ranking between, say, various countries titles of nobility, for example a British Duke is equivalent to a French Duc is equivalent to a German Herzog, while a British Earl is equivalent to a French Comte is equivalent to a German Graf, etc. However, there are not always clean parallels. The British system has always been simpler; there are many continental ranks that don't have clean equivalents in the British one (historically, for example, the rank of marquess was thought of a weird by the Medieval English, with Henry IV quipping "the name of marquess is a strange name in this realm" when asked to grant the title to someone). Even in Britain, there are different systems; Scotland (for example) doesn't have Barons, they have Lords of Parliament. They also traditionally didn't have Earls, they had Mormaers; which often get aligned to Earls in the English system, but were ranked more equivalently to Dukes within Scotland when it had an independent monarchy. You also have situations, like in German, which just had more finer gradations of titles; you've got Herzog, but also Erzherzog, you've not only got Grafs, but you also have freigraf and landgraf and burggraf and markgraf and pfalzgraf. You've got the rank furst, which has no English equivalent at all (usually translated a "Prince", but entirely distinct from "Prinz", which is the equivalent of the English "Prince"), and you've got kurfurst. And that doesn't even get into the Slavic titles of places like Russia and Poland (like Boyar and Voivode) that have no common history with the Western European ones, or Turkish ones (like Bey). The best I can recommend to get some handle on these by equivalent rank is to check out Imperial, royal and noble ranks, especially the infobox on the right, which seems to delineate similar titles into their own boxes. There's also a section of that article titled "Corresponding titles of nobility between languages" that may be helpful. --Jayron32 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the parallels in ranks across languages but what was the social understanding of this and with the families of British peers. For example, was the daughter of a British duke like the Duke of Norfolk (the oldest non-royal Dukedom) equal to the daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Altenburg (a sovereign duke of the German Empire) or the daughter of Duke of Croÿ (a non-reigning duke). Were they considered equal in the marriage market? 128.193.154.158 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It sort-of depends on which perspective we're taking. morganatic marriage is not a concept in the British Isles, who have always been a bit less precious about these things. Thus, there was never a problem there of people marrying "above" or "below" their rank. As noted in that article, in German speaking Europe, they were a bit more strict about it. I don't have any more direct information on this thing, but perhaps the morganatic marriage article will have some leads you can follow through its references. --Jayron32 18:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I did find this article which may be relevant, at least tangentially, to your question. --Jayron32 18:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Another possible thread would be to look for examples of British non-royal peers marrying continental nobility. If you take, for example, List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland, it's not really a large list; maybe a few hundred throughout history, and one can look for actual examples. In my memory, I can't think of a time when a non-Royal British duke ever married someone outside the British isles (unlike Kings and their progeny, who were much more cosmopolitan in their marriage options). Like, from your example of the Duke of Norfolk, literally every one of them married an Englishwoman. --Jayron32 18:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The lack of particularity over bloodlines by the British aristocracy is illustrated by the fad for marrying fabulously wealthy American heiresses to stave off financial ruin, known as "million dollar duchesses" (owning huge areas of British farmland ceased to be profitable once the American prairies had been ploughed-up). Our List of American heiresses includes quiet a few examples. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

For me at least, Jayron's very long link resolves to a much shorter one [6]. —Tamfang (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe Prince Charles, Prince of Wales would be translated as Prinz Karl, Fürst von Wallis. —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Related to a social aspect, if not exactly about marriage: Both the UK and Germany have/had an Order of precedence or a ranking of the different levels of royalty and nobility (within one system) in relation to each other. This was actually regularly used for things like lining people up to process into the dining room at a dinner party (top ranks go first). Internationally there was also a Precedence among European monarchies. However, I’m drawing a blank on finding an order of precedence that specified places for nobility from another system – for example if you have a Herzog to dinner, do you seat him above the Duke or not. This late Victorian discussion hints (similar to the other answers here) that perhaps this wasn’t something that was easily codified. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This likely may have been something that was established on an ad hoc basis and negotiated "behind the scenes". There is likely someone in a household who would be in charge of protocol and would have established explicitly, perhaps through consultation with all parties involved, what the expectations would be. I believe (but am not 100% sure) that this would fall under the duties of a Chamberlain. --Jayron32 16:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an anecdote about a Crown Prince of Prussia (iirc) objecting to being seated below the King of Hawaii. The host, the Prince of Wales, remarked, "Either he's a King or he's a common-or-garden n——r and doesn't belong here at all." —Tamfang (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a good story, but this reddit post reply says that it fist appeared in writing in 1931, and that although the Crown Prince of Germany (and Prussia) did meet the Prince of Wales and King Kalākaua in London in July 1881, they were not at events which required a formal order of precedence and contemporary press reports suggest that they treated each other cordially. Additionally, Edward seems to have held rather enlightened views on race, stating in India in 1875 that "because a man has a black face and a different religion from our own, there is no reason why he should be treated as a brute" and also complained about Indians being described with the N-word. Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, this apocryphal story seems to have snuck into our article on Kalākaua's 1881 world tour. Removed now. Also the German Crown Prince is the future Frederick III, German Emperor not Wilhelm II. Also to answer the OP's question, Princess Marie Amelie of Baden married the Duke of Hamilton and her daughter Lady Mary Victoria Douglas-Hamilton married the Prince of Monaco, so rare but it has happened. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, Frederick III, quite so. This makes the story even more unlikely because Frederick was also a liberal who was outspoken in the defence of the German Jewish community and had pledged not to make war when he came to the throne. Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Victorian Britain, but in the continent the mediatized German nobility (such as the Neipperg) were considered equal to sovereigns. The British dukes had no such status. If a king married a Countess of Neipperg, the marriage was considered equal and their offspring would inherit the throne. If a king married a British countess or a Princess of Bagration (a member of the royal house that can be traced to the late antiquity, and kings from times immemorial), the marriage was considered morganatic and their offspring would be excluded from succession. See Princess Tatiana Constantinovna of Russia and Catherine Dolgorukova (a patrilineal descendent of Rurik through Yaroslav the Wise) for some examples. As a result of such arrangements, almost all European royalty was ethnically German by 1914. Ghirla^-трёп- 11:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr Lloyd George and his Guardians

In the book Fifty Caricatures by Max Beerbohm (William Heinemann, London, 1913) is one intituled "Mr Lloyd George and his Guardians". You can see a copy here. I recognise Rufus Isaacs reading an order paper to Lloyd George's left, but cannot place the other chap. Can anyone help identify him? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's Charles Frederick Gurney Masterman, see David Lloyd George: The architect of change, 1863-1912 (p. 226). I suspect that the National Insurance Act 1911 must be the context. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Ah thank you - I thought I'd seen it before. It's actually facing page 227, not on page 226) DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

February 4

Updating Chomsky's quote

In 1996 Noam Chomsky said The Internet is an elite organisation; most of the population of the world has never even made a phone call.

I assume he was referring to adults.

I suspect that his "most" has considerably reduced 25 years on. What percentage of adult humans in 2022 have never made a phone call? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In 2000, only 4 percent of people living in low- and middle-income countries had access to mobile phones. In 2015, that number rose to a whopping 94 percent. This was true even in sub-Saharan Africa, where there were 76 mobile cellular subscriptions for every 100 people, while only 68 percent of the region’s population had access to an improved water source.

The Technology Thats Making a Difference in the Developing World from 2017, so I expect that the figures are even higher now. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As of January 2021 there were 4.66 billion active internet users worldwide - 59.5 percent of the global population. Of this total, 92.6 percent (4.32 billion) accessed the internet via mobile devices. from Global digital population as of January 2021 Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that the two statistics are measuring different things; one is measuring the availability of mobile communication devices and the second is measuring the use of those devices to connect to the internet. While many people in the developed world use mobile devices as internet connectivity tools, they also are useful just as telephones, which may be how much of the world still uses them, which is why in 2015 94% of people had mobile phones, but in 2021 there were only 59.6 % of the world using the internet. Many people may have access to phone networks for use as phones and may not have internet connectivity (either for lack of infrastructure OR because they live in oppressive regimes that limits their access to the internet). --Jayron32 16:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed (also non-smart phones are an awful lot cheaper). Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We’ve also got the wiki articles: List of countries by smartphone penetration, which gives a representative sample of about 20 countries each year. There’s also List of countries by number of telephone lines in use which hasn’t been updated since 2010. List of countries by number of mobile phones in use includes both smartphones and other mobiles because it counts unique numbers, but that doesn’t map perfectly to unique people because some are business and some personal. Its lead makes the claim that globally, as of 2019, there were 104 phone numbers per 100 persons. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I guess we could never know accurately, but the above gives me a ball-park idea. Thanks -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

February 5

Do robbers ever contact medical support for their victims?

I know that, from a strategic point of view, calling emergency services for somebody that you just intentionally injured doesn’t make a lot of sense. But given that many murders are unplanned and criminals can still feel guilt or remorse, the concept doesn’t strike me as being all that absurd either. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 11:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Has it ever happened... ever? I almost guarantee it. Is this close enough? There's also this somewhat related piece. Criminals are not typically classified as exceptionally moral, but there is also a strategic component that could come into play - see felony murder rule. Calling an ambulance might prevent the death and the subsequent harsher sentence upon being caught. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Cognitive science and memory

What would be some empirically studied factors that influence our retention of information aka memory? For example, something like spaced repetition and the forgetting curve. --Bumptump (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A complicating aspect is that memory is not one single cognitive faculty, but is best understood as consisting of distinct faculties: short-term memory and long-term memory. Many cognitive scientists also consider working memory as being distinct from short-term memory. A concept such as memory span focusses on short-term memory, while the forgetting curve is about long-term memory. Focussing on long-term memory, there is a tremendous variation in the kind of information to be retained and reproduced, and also a substantial variation in whether a recall test is multiple choice or free, and in the latter case how the answers given are transformed into a performance score. And, finally, a confounding factor is that people develop various strategies for memorizing, and that different people use different strategies, which have different characteristics in interaction with factors that can influence retention. Almost any factor that some cognitive scientist has imagined could plausibly influence retention has also been studied, but due to the plethora of possibilities few published studies have been replicated. One consistent finding is that a good night's sleep after hours of cramming significantly increases retention. In the end, the best results can be expected from a combination of factors. One study reports good results with an approach to learning a foreign language (Spanish) through a method dubbed COLT (for Colorado Optimized Language Tutor), using "flash cards", combined with systematic, temporally spaced "personalized" reviews; for details see this chapter "Predicting and Improving Memory Retention", which also reviews some of the literature.  --Lambiam 10:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Even beyond concepts such as long-term and short-term memory, there are completely different ways we "remember", Explicit memory is the sort of memory where we are able to recall events we participated in; that is a completely different function than Procedural memory, which is the sort of memory that helps us repeat complex actions we have learned in the past (things like how to do long division, how to ride a bicycle, or how to play a musical instrument). We're not even remotely close to understanding the ways in which memories are stored in the brain, except in the broadest strokes. --Jayron32 17:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

February 6

Whoopi Goldberg "The Holocaust is not about race"

Hi, I'm French and I don't really follow Whoopi Goldberg, her show being way too liberal for my liking. Nevertheless, I've read what happened to her and I honestly don't get what she said wrong. She said the Holocaust was not about race. I might be mistaking but everybody who died in concentration camps were white. Most of them were Jews (a religion, not a race) and I haven't heard of Blacks or Asians being deported (to be fair, there were almost none of them in Europe at that time). There were ethnicities judged inferior by the Nazis such as Slavics but I'm not sure that's considered racism (more xenophobia I would say). So why are people so upset about what she said? Especially when they all know she's a liberal (they usually go against people who don't think like them). I'm pretty sure nobody would have reacted if a French person would have said the same thing in France. Ericdec85 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

it is clearly impossible to describe what would happen if something that didn't happen had happened, but you might like to look up the current legal and political reactions surrounding Goin's street-art evoking the holocaust in relation to the treatment of Muslims. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:291F:FC27:DDBE:2C1D (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read our article on Nazi racial theories. Hitler's Mein Kampf  has a whole chapter with the title Volk und Rasse, considered the central chapter, in which he expounds how the "Aryan" is superior and must keep its blood pure by not mixing with inferior races, while the Jew forms the greatest contrast to the noble Aryan; they are described as a cowardly race with no culture of their own, thriving only as parasites on others, and compared to a "gang of rats" (eine Rotte von Ratten). The text speaks explicitly of the "Jewish race" (jüdische Rasse).  --Lambiam 10:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, if it were a religious rather than "racial" persecution, then Jewish people who had converted to Christianity would have been immune, but that was not the case; see for example Edith Stein, a Catholic nun who was gassed at Auschwitz in 1942 because she came from a Jewish family. The Nazis were a rather irreligious lot, who only tolerated Christianity for the purposes of population control (see the German Christians (movement)) and espoused a sort of nationalistic paganism, see German Faith Movement. Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Your ignorance about liberalism vs. conservatism rivals your ignorance about the Holocaust. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Consider that maybe the good Frenchman who asked might be working from a different understanding of the meaning of words than you oh so holy, enlightened, and and educated American one? The French DO have their own language and culture that is not the same as ours, in case you forgot. Instead of bashing persons for perceived ignorance, maybe try to educate them? Or is that too much work?

The OP apparently has an understanding of the word 'race' in line with physical anthropology: three races, white/caucasoid, black/negroid, asian/mongoloid. That's one, common definition of 'race'. Argue until the sky turns purple that it's not real, the fact remains that for many people, real or not, that is what that word means. And by that definition, it's true, the Holocaust had nothing to do with THAT DEFINITION of race. The Nazis had their own entirely different definition of race. Are the Nazis more correct than our Frenchman friend here? To the Nazis the Holocaust was about what THEY called race, but it wasn't about what our French friend calls race. So what is the right answer, then? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F054:8FB:E70D:BC14 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Consider also that even the common American understanding of "liberal" and "conservative" are fairly extreme outliers compared to the usual meaning of those terms elsewhere in the democratic world. Context matters. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "conservatism" was only introduced in the discourse by BB. But the continental sense of "liberal" as favouring a policy of economic liberalism doesn't make sense in the original question.  --Lambiam 10:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"...she's a liberal (they usually go against people who don't think like them)." The one who said that sounds like an "extreme outlier". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a very narrow and a-historical definition of race though. Even the physical anthropologists that invented such classification didn't stop with top-level groups like white/caucasoid, black/negroid, asian/mongoloid. They then came up with all sorts of sub-divisions, and sub-sub-divisions, like "Aryan" or "Semitic" or "Mediterranean" or "Dinaric" etc. (See for example to works of Arthur de Gobineau, who was a major influence on Nazi ideology, and who thought that French aristocrats such as himself were racially distinct from and superior to both French commoners and English aristocrats). More generally, "race" basically means a group of people of shared origin/ancestry, or more loosely a cultural group (i.e. what people these days tend to prefer to call ethnicity, or sometimes nationality): [7]. Given that these definitions were in very common use until (it seems to me) very recently, perhaps the more interesting question is how/why did so many people come to the conclusion that "race" can only mean black/white etc. Iapetus (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Winston Churchill used the phrase "Island Race" to describe the British people, despite knowing perfectly well that we are a muddle of foreign migrants arriving here over the course of thousands of years. Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This article here may be useful for a more detailed discussion of the errors involved in Goldberg's comments, and how they come from a flawed definition race and racism: here. Iapetus (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

February 7

Did the Ottoman empire claim victory against the Allied powers in the Gallipoli Campaign?

There have been many debates and arguments between historians about this topic.I would like to know your claims and evidence to support them.In the Gallipoli campaign article on wikipedia the result of the campaign is shown as an "Ottoman Victory" though the Ottoman Empire's economy was severly damaged after the events of the campaign.--Someguyonthewiki (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguyonthewiki (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Probobly the right place for this discussion is Talk:Gallipoli campaign, but it's the only example I can think of where a major amphibious landing had established beachheads but was unable to exploit them and subsequently withdrew. The Allied strategic aim of passing a naval fleet through the Turkish Straits to bombard the Ottoman capital and open a supply route to Russia was never achieved. The victory might have been costly, the casualty figures are similar for both sides and as you say there were economic consequences, but the object of the Central Powers was achieved, while that of the Entente Allies was not. Victory at Gallipoli, 1915: The German-Ottoman Alliance in the First World War by Klaus Wolf (2020) is a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Victory in a single battle or campaign is not a victory in the entire war. The Entente clearly did not succeed in the Gallipoli campaign, but as noted in Ottoman Empire in World War I#Armistce, by autumn of 1918, the Ottoman government did not believe the War was winnable on the battlefield, and while a succession of Government officials tried to negotiate a set of favorable terms, they had no bargaining chips, and that led to the Armistice of Mudros, the Occupation of Constantinople, and the eventual Partition of the Ottoman Empire. Given those series of events, I find it hard to say they could claim victory against the allies in World War I. --Jayron32 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the Middle Eastern campaign was a loss for the Ottomans and a victory for the Allied Powers… and resulted in the Ottoman Empire losing about half of its pre-war territory. I certainly would not call that a “win”. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The OP was specifically asking about the infobox of the Gallipoli campaign article, although admittedly the heading of his question suggests the whole war, which was clearly a catastrophic defeat for the Ottomans. Perhaps the OP is unaware of the other campaigns against the Ottomans? See Ottoman Empire in World War I and Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If the Entente got in range would they have been willing to bomb landmarks like Hagia Sophia and that other one if the Ottoman military had started using them as shields? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Such speculative questions are unanswerable.  --Lambiam 16:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If the Zimmerman telegraph was leaked almost immediately then it's possible some private communication supporting one way or the other came out by now, though it's also possible there's nothing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's highly improbable that the Hagia Sophia would be a target; it had been the centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity for more than 1,000 years before it was a mosque and destroying it would have upset both the Russians (our allies) and the Greeks (who we hoped would be our allies). Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite apart from the Russians and the Greeks, millions of Muslim British Subjects (and indeed French) would also have been rather-more-than upset by any attempt to bomb Hagia Sophia or the Blue Mosque (which I assume is what you mean by "the other one"). DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes that too. And even non-religious history and architecture fans. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sultan, Mehmed V, in his role as Caliph, had declared jihad against the British Empire. Given the large Muslim population in India (which included the areas which are now Pakistan and Bangladesh), and the part played by the British Indian Army and the Imperial Service Troops, maintaining good relations with Muslims was something the British could not afford to ignore. Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople : The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire is well worth reading. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The Zimmermann Telegram had nothing at all to do with the Ottoman Empire; it was sent by Germany to Mexico and had nothing to do with the Ottoman campaign. --Jayron32 17:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I know, I know, what I was getting at is that it if even that can leak then anything can leak. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

For any given large enough tolerance of "could", anything could happen. However, we don't discuss "could" at this venue. As it says in the instructions at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Instead, this desk is for asking questions about what "did" happen. Please keep the discussion going in that direction instead of veering off into speculation. --Jayron32 18:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

One might declare the outcome of the Gallipoli campaign a Pyrrhic victory for the Ottoman side. The Ottoman losses were as high as they were also because the mortality rate was much higher than in the Allied forces and huge numbers succumbed to disease, presumably because of insufficient hygiene while the medical corps was less trained and inadequately equipped. The mortality among the wounded was also significantly higher.  --Lambiam 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- The most famous targeting of a famous religious building during WW1 was Reims Cathedral... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

What play is this?

While changing TV channels one day I saw an infatuated character ask a military officer if he was a general and he said generalissimo and she fainted or otherwise became even more star-struck. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Our List of generalissimos might help. Any clue as to location or era? Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Somewhere with white people and when corsets were still a thing. I'm going to guess 19th century? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, and with no warranties or guarantees either express or implicit, either Darling Lili or Soft Beds, Hard Battles. I've only seen each once, and can't say they had much impact on me, but they both sprang to mind when I read the question. If I had to put money on it, then I'd go for Darling Lili. If not them, then 'Allo, 'Allo! is very much the sort of thing that would have used a joke like that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

February 8

From Passover to Rosh Hashanah is always set at 163 days?

Hi. From Passover to Rosh Hashanah is always set at 163 days. Is there a certain year/date that went into effect? I absolutely cannot find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:A300:5200:D1E8:2A15:C1F4:7974 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a very complicated and detail mathematical calculation. However, the Hebrew calendar is now set, and not fluid. For more information, see Hebrew_calendar#The_fixing_of_the_calendar. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

According to that section, "the calendar rules reached their current form by the beginning of the 9th century". Since Adar I, when intercalated, is not inserted between Passover and Rosh Hashanah, and each month between these feasts has a fixed (non-variable) number of days, the interval is fixed by the dates of 14 Nisan for Passover and 1 Tishrei for Rosh Hashanah.  --Lambiam 22:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Passover starts 14 days after Nisan so the perfect fixed interval for this era would be 14 less than ((mean time between current mean Nisan 1.0 or first moonsighting of spring, and the moonsighting 6 lunations later), rounded to the nearest integer). Estimatable by the fraction of a lap the Sun gains on the first point of Aries in these slightly shorter than average 6 lunar months, plus 6, then multiplied by the average size of a tropical month. 27.321582*(6+170.7/360ths)-14=162.88 days. Holy crap! But wait, there's more. The ecliptic is almost vertical in Jerusalem in early spring but diagonal in fall which would make the average exceed 162.88, but not by as much as the 6, 8 hours or so it'd take for distance from the Sun degrees to fully equal degrees lost to slant cause raw degrees from Sol helps difficult moonsightings even if air and light conditions and degrees above horizon are equal. So 163 is still very good for this era even though the Jewish calendar rules presumably tried to fit the slightly different astronomic cycle lengths of many centuries ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

February 9

Why doesn't Sweden use the Euro?

I am curious as to why Sweden has not chosen to use the Euro as their national currency. -Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.125.123 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the Sweden article, it's because the people voted against it. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest you read Sweden and the euro and 2003 Swedish euro referendum.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)