Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 May 10
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 9 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 11 > |
| 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. |
May 10
edit"old occupation"?
editIn this ref [1] there is a mention that "At the First Congress of the Communist Parties of Lithuania and Belorussia (old occupation)73 which took place on October 1-3 [1918]". What exactly does "old occupation" refer to in this context? A specific area under German occupation? --Soman (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- When I search the book for "old occupation", it defines the term on p. 773 ("German-occupied territories"). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks! In my snippet view that didn't appear. What would have been the Belorussian areas under German occupation in Oct 1918? Notably I find in another source regarding the same event that "The Communist Party of Lithuania and Belorussia was so called because it was active in several districts of Belorussia adjacent to Vilnius territory " --Soman (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Eastern Front As of 1917.jpg shows several areas of modern Belarus under German occupation, cities such as Grodno and other areas of Western Belarus were under German occupation. While under occupation, these areas of Western Belarus were administered by Germany as a unit with the area around Bialystok in northeastern Poland as Bialystok-Grodno District, part of the Ober Ost administration. --Jayron32 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- be.wiki article be:Камуністычная партыя Літвы і Заходняй Беларусі writes: "I з'езд КПЛіЗБ назваў партыю Кампартыяй Літвы і Беларусі першай акупацыі (куды адносілася тэрыторыя, захопленая немцамі ў 1915 па лініі Дзвінск — Нарач — Крэва — Навагрудак — Баранавічы — Пінск, г.зн. да наступлення немцаў у лютым 1918).", which google translates presents as "The First Congress of the [KPLiZB] called the party the Communist Party of Lithuania and Belarus of the first occupation (which included the territory occupied by the Germans in 1915 along the line Dvinsk - Naroch - Kreva - Novogrudok - Baranovichi - Pinsk, ie before the German offensive in February 1918)." --Soman (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Eastern Front As of 1917.jpg shows several areas of modern Belarus under German occupation, cities such as Grodno and other areas of Western Belarus were under German occupation. While under occupation, these areas of Western Belarus were administered by Germany as a unit with the area around Bialystok in northeastern Poland as Bialystok-Grodno District, part of the Ober Ost administration. --Jayron32 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks! In my snippet view that didn't appear. What would have been the Belorussian areas under German occupation in Oct 1918? Notably I find in another source regarding the same event that "The Communist Party of Lithuania and Belorussia was so called because it was active in several districts of Belorussia adjacent to Vilnius territory " --Soman (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Wiktor Sukiennicki (1984). East Central Europe During World War I: From Foreign Domination to National Independence. East European Monographs. p. 868. ISBN 978-0-88033-012-1.
Wikimedia and the law
editHow many times has Wikimedia been sued, and what for? Have they ever been held liable by a court? 2601:640:4000:3170:C0B5:94C5:ACF9:63EB (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe once or twice, unsuccessfully. See History of Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better article for that purpose is Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, which mentions at least five instances where the Wikimedia Foundation has been directly sued by individuals (not including DMCA takedowns, cease-and-desist letters, etc.), usually for libel or defamation. The article also mentions that the Foundation lost the libel case initiated by Louis Bacon. (Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation also contains G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc, which Wikimedia apparently also lost.) — TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 07:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, sort of. It looks like the other parties in those cases obtained orders against the WMF in the English courts, which orders are unenforceable against the WMF where it's based (the US). So it's not "winning", but it's not really "losing" either, in any real sense. But that's just on a cursory look - I could be wrong. Proteus (Talk) 15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better article for that purpose is Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, which mentions at least five instances where the Wikimedia Foundation has been directly sued by individuals (not including DMCA takedowns, cease-and-desist letters, etc.), usually for libel or defamation. The article also mentions that the Foundation lost the libel case initiated by Louis Bacon. (Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation also contains G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc, which Wikimedia apparently also lost.) — TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 07:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Theory of evil
editIs there any name for Rousseaunian philosophy or theory holding that people aren't born evil, but acquire / become evil due to external factors (such as life hardships, bad influences, shortcomings, etc)? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, next to Rousseaunian, the adjectives Rousseauan, Rousseauesque, Rousseauian, Rousseauism, Rousseauist, Rousseaunian, Rousseauvian, Rousselian and Roussellian have all been used. Rousseauian seems to be emerging as the winner.[1] --Lambiam 11:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Noble savage for the particular version of the theory that it is "civilization" that makes people evil, and everyone was fine before then. Iapetus (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)