Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 3

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< November 2 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 4 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


November 3

edit

Is there a step-by-step process or a video on how to find sources on any topic?

edit

I can't find sources for anything, I feel like a can't research anything. 67.80.215.38 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's {{find sources}} & Help:Find sources. And if all else fails, try the reference desk.   —2606:A000:1126:28D:B44D:AECC:2DDA:3FC5 (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you provide the topic you're considering, we could probably provide more targeted responses. Broadly speaking, Google is your friend, especially the news, book, and journal targeted searches. If your topic has a closely related topic already in Wikipedia, that article may also be a good source of discovering leads. For example, if you're considering an article about the 2020 XYZ and there's already an article for the 2019 XYZ, you could probably follow the citations and external links to see where that leads you. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends a lot on what you're trying to accomplish. Your process for finding sources if you're creating a new Wikipedia article may differ greatly from the process for proving or disproving specific claims or fleshing out an extant article. And your "source for sources" will certainly differ greatly depending on what the topic is. For instance, if you wanted to write about a legal concept, I'd refer you to a couple legal encyclopedias and a treatise or two. But if you wanted to write about the newest video game, your best bet would be the trade press and reviews. History and biographies are pretty easy since there's usually a half dozen books about anything historically significant. And, indeed, there are some subjects that are so niche that you aren't going to find acceptable sources—in many cases those subjects won't be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did Albrecht Dürer paint his monkey?

edit

When did Albrecht Dürer (1471 - 1528) paint his monkey watercolour? I don't mean the engraving with the monkey sat at the feet of the Madonna, but the one in a similar style to his Young Hare. I can't see a page for it, and whilst the Hare appears in the gallery at the bottom of his page, neither appear in the List of paintings by Albrecht Dürer. I just need a date really. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.44.221 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this says it was done in 1520. --Jayron32 19:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to, but that doesn't look like a very solid source. I can't find anything from a museum or anything more reliable. It is located in the Monasterio de El Escorial, Spain if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.44.221 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia says 1495, but of course WP is not considered a reliable source. Matt Deres (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wikipedia actually doesn't say 1495. It has 1495 for the "Madonna with Monkey" (La Madone au singe) engraving, which is not the one in question. The one in question is just "A monkey" (un singe), which is listed in the "animals" section further down the article (Les Animaux) and is undated, but it does say it is part of the collection of El Escorial in Madrid, so perhaps that might provide a better source for research. --Jayron32 12:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does say 1495. Look at the caption for the picture (of just the monkey): "Un Singe, 1495, Escorial". The only date info I see about the Madonna and Monkey piece is: "Cette aquarelle fut réalisée peu après le retour de son premier voyage à Venise et fut reprise peu de temps après dans la gravure sur cuivre représentant la Madone au singe, vers 1498." Matt Deres (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I missed that one. You are correct! --Jayron32 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a book source that has 1521. I do not know how reliable this actually is; apparently Dürer drew a baboon in 1521,[1] so there is room for some confusion here.  --Lambiam 23:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of ancient territorial claims being successfully revived?

edit
 
Territories lost by Germany in 1945. The Recovered Territories are in yellow on this map.

Which successful examples (cases) of ancient territorial claims being successfully revived have there been throughout history? So far, I can think of:

Which additional examples of this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by ancient. Alsace and Lorraine were part of France up to 1870 when the territory was lost to Germany. It was French again from 1919 to 1940 and from 1945 onwards. The further back you go the less territorial claims were made by countries, the more they were made by individual rulers or by their families. This was because the concept of the nation state had not fully evolved. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Alsace and Lorraine were part of France up to 1870." Yes, since the 18th century. Before that, they were part of the (German) 'Holy Roman Empire'. --Morinox (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one could view Germany reviving the Holy Roman Empire's claim to Alsace in 1870-1871 as being one example of this, though the time frame here (200-250 years) is much less than for both the Recovered Territories and Israel. Futurist110 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Except Alsace and Lorraine were also long part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1639 (Alsace) and 1766 (Lorraine), and Lorraine's ruling ducal house even produced some Holy Roman Emperors, they were attached to the Kingdom of Germany title within the HRE, and the HRE was functionally the German state during that time. One could argue the 50ish years that Germany had control of the territory between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I represented a return of German lands to Germany (though that's as debatable as arguing the other way around). Back far enough, the lands were part of Middle Francia, though when you get that far back into the middle ages, modern notions of nation state do not transfer well. --Jayron32 12:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron -- you left out the Mamluks. They had a ruling class of Turkic origin, but ruled over an Egyptian-based realm as late as 1516. See also Muhammad Ali of Egypt#Reinventing Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Thanks for adding that. I also missed the Ayyubids too, between the Fatimids and the Mamluks. The Ayyubids were Kurdish in origin. --Jayron32 13:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, modern Israel did not revive the specific borders of ancient Israelite/Jewish realms. The solid core of Israelite/Jewish population in ancient times lived in the inland west bank hill-chain, but most of this area was specifically excluded from pre-1967 Israel, while pre-1967 Israel also included some areas (such as Ascalon) which were not part of any ancient Israelite/Jewish realm. AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've also previously heard that. That said, though, some Israeli politicians--such as Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked--do want to permanently keep control of large parts of the West Bank, especially the sparsely populated but also relatively large Area C. Futurist110 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads! Off the top of my head:

  1. Define "ancient".
  2. Arguably, the First Crusade
  3. Even more arguably, the Third Crusade
  4. The wars fought by Saladin and many other subsequent Muslims that, erm, recaptured the recaptured land
  5. The Northern Crusades
  6. The Reconquista
  7. Loads and loads of (successful) wars of independence

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The First Crusade restored some districts in the area of current-day Turkey to Byzantine rule, but otherwise it's difficult to say how it "revived" anything... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just what did the Northern Crusades revive? Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

presidential election

edit

I'm supposed to go drop off my California ballot shortly. For the POTUS election, I don't like either Trump or Biden, and CA is not a swing state so I don't have to face the dilemma of choosing between those awful characters. That leaves me deciding between the major parties (Green and Libertarian) or a minor party (there are several). "Major" here means the Greens and Libs both hope to get 5% of the vote, which would qualify them for federal funding next cycle. They are both fairly seriously compromised because of that. My policy preferences between them don't matter since neither is going to actually win the election, but I do want to break the Dem/GOP duopoly, so having one of them (it doesn't matter which) get 5% would be very nice. Having both get 5% would be even nicer, but even less likely than just one getting it. The other parties will be lucky to make 1% all put together.

I'm not asking about Green vs Lib since I can check what limited polling is available (they've done the 5% dance many times before, never gotten near it, but maybe their chances are better this time). Rather, my question is: why should the fringe parties care how many votes they get? Am I depriving the Wiki Template Editors' Party (or whatever, some tiny fringe operation) of anything material, if I prefer their platform but strategically vote for Green or Lib? I've never understood this and they don't explain it on their websites. Not looking for political opinions about policy or candidates: question is only about election mechanisms and funding. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These parties may hope to get, eventually, 60% of the national vote, but if they do not participate in elections, no one will even know they exist. In this stage, getting some form of recognition, however limited, may be their main strategic short-term goal.  --Lambiam 23:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If I tell someone that I voted for the greens or libs, then at least they can understand what I did. I'm tempted to vote for one of those just for that reason, to avoid having to explain the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea which would be the followup question if I voted the way I really want to. The name recognition conundrum at a fractal level, I suppose. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And be prepared for them to laugh at you for wasting your vote. So can you write-in someone's name? The governor of Maryland, I think it was, announced that he had written in Reagan's name. Probably figuring that, even dead, he can do better than what we have and/or will have. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wasting my vote even more if I voted for the demopublicans. At least voting for a smaller party increases the Shannon information of the vote distribution. Racking up numbers for the big evil parties doesn't convey anything except a willingness to be fooled or bullied by them. Voting for a smaller long-shot is no different than voting for whichever demopublican is behind in the polls (unless they are close enough that the outcome is really in question, which is not the case here in CA). Trump is going to lose CA so the CA election is a referendum on Biden: voting for him = "approve", voting anything else = "disapprove". While there might be reasons to prefer one of the majors over the other, the crappy choice between them reflects a "race to the bottom" in the 2-party system so the election is partly a referendum on *that*. So once I recognize the situation, I have to vote 3rd party. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added: there are some write-ins possible here in CA, but the Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom Party, and American Independent Party have candidates actually on the ballot so you can just fill in the little circle. On my ballot, they are in the order Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, Peace & Freedom, and AIP. I don't know if they are randomized by individual ballot or what, but traditionally being listed first brings an advantage, so maybe the greens will win (lol). 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I paid attention to California elections, I believe the order of candidates was randomized for each set of precincts that had the same races and propositions. So your friend in the next city / county / Assembly district / Cong district had a different ballot and a different sequence of candidates. —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen something like this a couple of times lately for the US election - "...the Greens and Libs both hope to get 5% of the vote, which would qualify them for federal funding next cycle. They are both fairly seriously compromised because of that." I don't understand it. How does that compromise them? I much prefer standard and very public funding to often secret political donations. Not looking for a debate. Just the US perspective. (If there is such a thing.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a checkbox on the tax return that lets you allocate some small quantity of your tax money to a presidential fund. It's that fund which minor parties hope to qualify for part of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's a similar scheme in Australia, although taxpayers don't have a choice. What puzzled me was the OP's view that it somehow compromised parties that benefited from it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean they engage in some demogoguery and crappy tactics (like forum spamming) to get more votes. The main benefit of being a minor candidate normally is getting to tell the public what you really think. Once someone has a financial incentive to get a certain (even low) number of votes, they tend to start spouting bullshit, and worse, believing the bullshit themselves. It's a conflict of interest, as it were. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That claim needs a source. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that politicians are corrupt. What a news flash! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! My point is that in my country the government funding of parties is generally seen as a positive fund raising alternative to the obviously more corrupt method of getting "donations" from businesses and people who obviously expect later favours in return. I was surprised by the OP's perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the OP seems to have it turned around. Accepting funding from a business lends itself to supporting that business. Accepting money from the government lends itself to supporting... the government? Isn't that guy's job already, once he's elected. Also, I wonder how the OP is going to cast a California vote from central Kansas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be your job to "support government", once you're elected? Could be you were elected specifically to rein in government. And in fact, if you were running as a Libertarian, that's pretty much a guarantee.
Andre Marrou, who was the LP nominee in 1992, per our article lost most of his campaign staff for being willing to accept Federal funds.
That said, that doesn't seem to have been the OP's point, exactly. The point seemed to be that candidates trying to reach a certain level of votes would be corrupted by the pressure to say what voters want to hear, whereas minor-party candidates are usually thought in the race to take a principled stand for what they actually think, whether it wins votes or not. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to be outspoken when you know you have no chance of winning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it enables a certain honesty. That's what the OP was saying these parties would lose if they were seeking the 5% threshold. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, you should know by now that the default geolocation for the United States is near Wichita. 81.147.142.101 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you should know by now that banned users (of which you are one) are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes that tool rather useless. What it says about its frequent users is ... another question. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
If you're going to estimate the location of a contributor from the US that you know nothing else about, it's not that far off. The mean center of the United States population is somewhere in south-central Missouri, maybe a couple hundred miles from Wichita. --Trovatore (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that any third party was going to get 5% of the vote in the deeply polarized 2020 U.S. presidential election was ... idealistic at best. In 2016, all third parties combined won about 5.1% of the vote. In 2020, that support has collapsed to about 1.6%. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

Do Third Party Candidates Matter? At this writing, Trump leads Biden by 14,432 votes in Georgia (16 EVs). Libertarian Jo Jorgensen received 60,629 votes. So, if Biden pulls off a slim win, that third party candidate will have made all the difference. In Wisconsin (10 EVs), Trump lost by 20,938 votes, while 48,811 went to other candidates: the right-wing Libertarian, American Solidarity, and Constitution parties. In Nevada (6 EVs), and again only as of this moment, Biden leads Trump by 8,023 votes. That's not counting the 10,834 for other people, or the 10,394 for “None of these candidates.” If the gap is less than 32 electoral votes ... Third Party Candidates Might Matter! DOR (HK) (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Libertarian Party "right-wing" is not completely unmotivated, depending on which issues you look at, but this is a good example of the limitations of the left–right paradigm, which in my view obscures more than it clarifies. In particular it cannot be assumed that Jorgensen votes would otherwise have gone to Trump. However it's probably to the benefit of LP-aligned voters if the GOP thinks those votes would otherwise have been Republican, as that would incentivize the Republican Party to move in a libertarian direction. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More than half and less than all which is a net loss and of course the other third parties have their own net gains or losses and the net of the nets in each Washington DC, state, Nebraskasection and Mainepart is the final net spoiler effect of our constitutional right to harmlessly protest vote or throw away our vote and only states from about Alaska to NM in Bideness will have thrown away votes and with 20/20 hindsight you'll be able to tell that at most only a few of those in turn will really be thrown away. If you assume you want your least disliked major party to win each time that is which may or may not hide a possiblity that you'd prefer the timeline caused by a sacrifice of 4 years or you know you'd prefer it if you could fast forward but not if you have to live through it or even more abstract levels like would you ever change your mind about what you'd prefer in the previous level or is your preference bad for society as a whole instead of just a sensible preference or difference of opinion like if you're a real Nazi, burglar, Stalinist or climate denier. And then some of those would want to vote major party if they're in a swing state which would in the end actually help society anyway even if they only did it cause it's closer to their extreme or selfish wish. Oregon has legalized having small amounts of coke, meth and heroin etc. and DC legalized shrooms and other hallucinogens I think. Much more popular is weed, leftists don't need you to smoke weed anymore in more and more states so those libertarianizations will sway a few votes from libertarian to Democrat. If even East Coast states are legalizing weed now then other Dem states like New York can't be far behind. If guns trump all then a libertarian would vote Trump and if sex with younger people is their single-issue (a small but extant minority) you probably get a few votes from them. (I don't think women with 15, maybe 14 year old boys should be rape if he doesn't file regular rape charges be honest but I digress) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make any assumptions about third-party voters. If they wanted Trump, they'd have voted for Trump. If there were literally only two choices on the ballot, they might well just stay at home, like a lot of the Bernie supporters apparently did in 2016. By the way, many Republicans claim to already be libertarian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose any estimate would be as inaccurate as the polls or pundits. And a South American country freezes your pay 3 months or fines 3 months for not voting I think. If you really wanted to find out you could go that authoritarian route and compel a vote. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_November_3&oldid=988261546"