Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 March 23

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.

March 23

Images/symbols for early muslims

Zayd ibn Ali

What's the exact nature of the images used to display early muslims like Zayd ibn Ali and Isma'il ibn Ja'far? How do you call such images, what to they represent exactly? For which scope of persons are such symbols used? It seems not to be explained in the articles, infoboxes, and file information. --KnightMove (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You might want to read the article on Islamic calligraphy; I am by no means an expert (or even Muslim myself), but my understanding is that due to the Islamic prohibition on idolatry of images, such as Depictions of Muhammad (but not limited just to Muhammad), important historical figures are often represented by formalized calligraphy rather than paintings or drawings. From the article cited above "Although artistic depictions of people and animals are not explicitly forbidden by the Qur'an, pictures have traditionally been limited in Islamic books in order to avoid idolatry." --Jayron32 12:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this already helps a lot for understanding. Still, someone must have defined those specific red and green circles with all details, so that they can be used as illustrating images. Maybe some expert on topic will pass by... --KnightMove (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles Symbols of Islam and Green in Islam but these articles do not seem to be detail enough to take care of your query.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The picture on the left is correlated with Prophet Muhammad PBUH and his first established tribe. This included his first wife Khadijah and the area of the Quraysh tribe in Mecca. If you research the tribes you will find the scope of it used and where it was used, Loveleyla (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

'The' first usage of slogan "My body, my choice"?

Greetings,

Though feminist slogan My body, my choice has been coined in modern times still information on it's first usage strangely seems bit obscure. IMHO there is need to dig, browse more decades old sources.

1) In late 1969 the slogan was coined as a feminist struggle for reproductive rights and subsequently noted by the global feminist struggle.

I added above sentence after sourcing only but citation might have been misplaced or some thing. can some one help me in providing more accurate info with citation.

2) According to Anjum Altaf, the ironic history of the term is during the 17/18 century process of capitalism replacing feudalism, the slogan 'My body, my choice' was imposed by oppressor men on oppressed men in an effort to officially regularize bonded laborers own bodies as private properties and extending property rights over them.

Looking for reliable sources from academic side for above information.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Frances Wolseley photographs

We have a short article about Frances Garnet Wolseley, 2nd Viscountess Wolseley, which I mean to expand. Unfortunately, we lack any images of her. I have found two portrait paintings ([1], [2]) that meet the copyright criteria of Wikimedia Commons but there are several photographs online whose copyright status is not clear to me:

1. The one at page 59 here is dated 1912 with copyright attributed to "Wolseley Collection, Brighton and Hove City Libraries". There's another at page 54 with the same copyright attribution.
2. The image of Wolseley mowing appears on several web pages. Most if not all seem to be stock photos but the caption suggests to me that the photograph was published long enough ago to meet the criteria of the Commons.
3. This one is apparently attributed to "C. T. L. Clarke" but I could not find out who that was.
4. This one lacks any description.

This 1908 photograph from ODNB seems to be alright for the Commons (copyright attributed to Bassano, who died in 1913), but I cannot access the article and therefore the full size image. If anyone has an ODNB subscription, they could contribute a lot to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Bassano was the studio, Bassano himself retired around 1903, so that picture was probably by another photographer. The "forgotten women gardeners" picture (your Number 4) is cropped from the frontispiece of In a College Garden (1916), where it has the studio mark "Coydey Photo Brighton", I have been unable to find out anything about "Coydey" DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. If my understanding of the Alexander Bassano article is correct, the studio was renamed "Bassano Ltd, Royal Photographers" after Bassano retired. Since the caption refers simply to "Bassano", can it be safely assumed that the photograph was taken by Bassano himself and that the copyright has expired? I am not having any luck with Coydey either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: - the National Portrait Gallery, which ODNB credits, says "Bassano Ltd". DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it proved that what a person speaks about himself influence on his mindness?

Is it proved that what a person speaks about himself influences his mindedness? For instance, a person that says about himself every day that he is stupid or he has a lack of memory but doesn't really believe in what he is saying, can it influence him? ThePupil (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see Autosuggestion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a new idea. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" - Shakespeare in Hamlet. How you interpret your experiences has a major effect on their effect on you. Eliyohub (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sudetengau

Looking at the map of Reichsgau Sudetenland, it looks hardly viable from a geographical point of view. It was narrow, mountainous and disconnected. What were the German plans for its future? Was it to stay as it was? Was it to be annexed by Gau Saxony or partitioned among other Gaue? Do you have any idea? Thank you. --195.62.160.60 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any information to indicate that there were plans to annex it to another Gau. Looking at the map, it doesn't seem all that disjointed; it is composed of two non-contiguous parts, but that's not exactly a deal-breaker (the U.S. state of Virginia also has two discontiguous parts). Being narrow and convoluted in shape is also not a deal-breaker for being so administered, the U.S. state of Maryland, while not technically discontiguous, is a far more convoluted shape, which at its narrowest points (at the head of the Chesapeake Bay and around Hancock, Maryland) is only a few kilometers wide. It's a bit of an oddity, but I don't see any hard barriers towards being administered as a single territory. --Jayron32 14:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

Did Charles Dickens have racing pigeons? Thanks. 86.188.121.20 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that he kept pigeons of any sort, but he did apparently have pet ravens. See Here. --Jayron32 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly there might be a confusion with Charles Darwin, who was very interested in pigeon breeds (though I don't know that he personally kept them). AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Or Jimmy and Susan Dickens, who breed racing pigeons, resulting in the sale of pigeons online with "Dickens" as part of the description. Or the Dickin Medal, which has been awarded to pigeons, and is frequently misspelled.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The nearest link I could find was this website! But that is quite fascinating about Charles Dickens keeping ravens. Currently no mention in his article and I think it could be added. It is, after all, quite unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. this source says he kept the paw of a pet cat "Bob" as a letter opener.

The best I could do was Dickens' description of pigeon lofts in Spitalfields, which is here. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's more about Dickens and his ravens, including a connection with Poe's poem about the raven who kept saying "Nevermore!"[3] --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at Talk:Charles Dickens#Ravens. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about some details in the true-crime murder case of Mark Winger

This question concerns a true-crime case. In 1995, Mark Winger murdered two people: his wife Donnah Winger and a shuttle-bus driver named Roger Harrington.

Crime Details – Extended Description

In 1995, Mark Winger murdered two people: his wife Donnah Winger and a shuttle-bus driver named Roger Harrington. Long story short: Mark Winger lured Roger Harrington into his home, using false pretenses. Mark Winger then murdered Harrington (as well as Winger’s wife, Donnah Winger) after Harrington arrived at the Winger home at the appointed time. Mark Winger then attempted to frame Harrington for the murder of Donnah Winger. Mark Winger told police that Harrington broke into his home. Winger heard a commotion, ran into the dining room, and observed Harrington killing his wife Donnah. Winger claimed that he then killed Harrington as an act of self-defense (or, rather, in defense of his wife who was being attacked / murdered). It took years, but police eventually got to the bottom of things … and figured out the truth. The truth: Mark Winger lured Harrington into his home. He murdered Harrington by shooting him. His wife Donnah heard the gunshots and entered the room. Then, Mark Winger killed her, too (with a claw-hammer attack). Mark Winger then “staged” the crime scene, to make it look like Harrington had attacked and killed Donnah Winger with the hammer; and that Mark Winger then shot / killed Harrington in self-defense. That’s the long story short. Many years later, the case was cracked. One of the key pieces of evidence: the prosecutors presented a tape-recording of a telephone call between Mark Winger and Harrington, in which Winger invites Harrington over to the Winger home at an appointed date and time.[4] (At which time, Winger planned to commit the two murders.) Winger had claimed (i.e., lied) to police that he never saw or met Harrington before, and that Harrington just showed up at their home -- clear out of the blue -- entered it, and attacked his wife. The recorded telephone conversation proved Winger to be lying about the circumstances of the crime.

My question – for anyone familiar with the facts / nuances of this case – how / why was the telephone call between Winger and Harrington tape-recorded? It seems quite odd that the innocent victim (Harrington) would receive a telephone call from Winger and (impromptu) decide to tape-record it. This happened back in 1995, before the advent and widespread use of modern-day technology / smart phones / home-security recording devices / Ring devices / Alexa devices / etc. In other words, this happened far prior to the present-day era, where every move that everyone ever makes is somehow being recorded or captured or videotaped by some modern-day technological device or another. Any thoughts as to how / why this telephone call would have been tape-recorded? Or does anyone know the underlying details? It being 1995, I assume that this was a land-line telephone, also. The investigating authorities had not "wire-tapped" or recorded the telephone call, because they themselves were unaware of its existence until many years later. Nor, prior to the murders, would they have had any reason to record a (seemingly innocuous) telephone conversation between Winger and Harrington. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

An earlier version states "Also introduced were a post-it reminder note in Harrington's car of the planned meeting between the cab driver Harrington and the Wingers; dispatch documents for the airport shuttle service for whom Harrington worked; recorded conversations between Winger and the driver of the possible meeting later that afternoon on the day of the murders;" Apparently the airport authority kept recordings. I checked the current sources for clarification and to confirm the text per wp:verify, but the cited blog looks like it didn't get completely archived. -Modocc (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still confused. You stated: Apparently the airport authority kept recordings. What makes you say that? Where did you get that idea from? Thanks. You are stating, essentially, that Winger telephoned Harrington at his place of work. And the work-place (routinely) recorded their telephone calls. I guess, in some way, that scenario makes a little bit of sense. I was under the impression -- and, in fact, I believe I read -- that Winger telephoned Harrington at his home. And other people present at the Harrington home (during the call) testified as to the contents and substance of the telephone call. To wit: The witness stated -- in essence -- "Harrington got off the telephone ... he told me that Winger invited him over to his (Winger's) house and that Harrington was on his way over there to meet him, now". I'd think Winger telephoning Harrington at home would make more "sense", so to speak. I also believe that I read that Winger telephoned Harrington's employer / boss / manager at work ... and insisted on getting Harrington's home telephone number, so that he (Winger) could speak with Harrington directly ... as opposed to using the manager as an intermediary. Winger was an intelligent man (a nuclear engineer). I'd think he'd be pretty cautious to not speak too freely (i.e., to not say anything incriminating) on a work telephone... but might speak more freely on a home telephone (never imagining that it would be recorded). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Whether the recordings were private or part of a taxi dispatch system I don't know as I don't recall having heard/read about this case at all. It seems unlikely the cab service would actually give the man's number out. It's more likely that when asked for his number they were able to instead transfer/forward the call to his home number, or he had a personal work number that could be given out that was forwarded automatically from his workplace. Alternatively, the victim's family might have been in possession of a private recording, but for years be unaware of it. Either way, the article needs additional sources. -Modocc (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Winger called Harrington at his (Harrington's) home telephone, not at work. Per the following three facts:

(A) Investigators spoke to Roger Harrington’s former roommates and all three of them claimed that Harrington had received a call from Mark Winger, after which Harrington told them he was going to the Winger home.

(B) During the trial, the owner of Bootheel Area Rapid Transportation, Raymond Duffy, testified that Mark Winger had called to complain about Roger Harrington and Winger asked to talk directly to Harrington. Duffy checked with Roger Harrington first, who gave him the okay to providing Mark Winger with Harrington’s phone number.

(C) Prosecutors alleged that Mark Winger called Roger Harrington around 9 a.m. on the morning of the murders from his (Winger's) office at the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety. During the call, the two men agreed to meet at the Winger home later that day to discuss the incident with Donnah Winger and baby Bailey. Roger Harrington left his home in rural Mechanicsburg around 3:30, an hour before his prearranged meeting with Winger.

Source: [5].

So, Item "(A)" above indicates that Harrington received the calls at his home telephone. Item "(B)" above indicates that the shuttle-service owner did, in fact, give out Harrington's (private) home telephone number to Winger ... but only after Harrington gave the owner permission to do so. Item "(C)" above indicates that Winger called Harrington from his (Winger’s) office at the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety. I can imagine that a State governmental agency -- such as a "Department of Nuclear Safety" -- might possibly routinely record all of their telephone calls. But, at the same time, I’d also imagine that Winger would have been aware of his employer's telephone recording policy in his office ... and Winger would have been smart enough to know that he didn't want these particular (and incriminating) telephone conversations being recorded. The whole thing puzzles me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to be careful of what I say for BLP reasons but as per our article, despite initially getting away with it, Winger apparently made police suspicious by continuing to ask about the case even after it was closed. There was no logical reason that I can see why a genuinely grieving husband would want to do so, it's not like the case was unresolved or there was a suggestion of someone else's involvement. Then in prison he thought it was a good idea to solicit murder. I assume he's effectively still wealthy given his old job, but he was also no crime boss with the connections to pull such a thing off so not surprisingly it failed. And while okay he already had life without parole and so unless he had success his punishment wasn't likely to increase, it may still have affected how he's treated in prison & what he is allowed to do. There's also the fact that recording aside, it seems likely that at a minimum calling from work meant there would forever be a record of the number he called and how long the call lasted that would easily be made available to any investigators. In other words, I'd reconsider any assumptions that Winger was some mastermind criminal who was never going to make silly mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmmmmmm ... I have to agree and disagree with some of your sentiments. Clearly, Winger was no criminal mastermind ... I mean, really, who is? But, he did get away with murder for many, many years ... and he easily might have gotten away with it completely. (This case is often referred to in the media as "the perfect murder".) It was only a series of flukes and serendipity that allowed the case to (later) crack. While some (only one?) detective was suspicious of Winger all along, the higher-up powers-that-be repeatedly thwarted any further investigation, once Harrington was deemed guilty (and Winger not guilty, via self-defense). The police authorities had closed the case ... and had no intentions of reviewing it again. Then, Winger got greedy ... he sued the airport-shuttle service company. He claimed that they negligently hired a dangerous, psychopathic, homicidal driver (i.e., Harrington). It was the insurance company (not the police) -- defending the airport-shuttle service lawsuit -- that started to smell a rat, and to pursue the issue. In other words, the insurance company -- in defending its client -- did not want to pay out any unnecessary money (of course). Also, obviously, Winger should have left well enough alone ... and he should have let a sleeping dog lie. He (Winger) "pushed" the issue -- by greedily filing a lawsuit, looking for money from the airport-shuttle service. When he "pushed" the issue, it opened up a hornet's nest / a Pandora's Box ... and it came back to bite him. In fact, when he saw the direction of the "new investigation" (i.e., the insurance investigation) ... he dropped the lawsuit, after perhaps one or two months. Probably hoping that everything would just go away. But, at that point, it was too late. The insurance investigators got the criminal / police investigators into the loop ... and the rest is history. Winger was convicted of two murders ... and was sentenced to life / no parole. Yeah, he's no mastermind. But, I personally would think that the idea of having incriminating conversations over a recorded telephone line would be such an obvious "no-no" to even the most novice murderer-wanna-be. No? Like I said, the issue of how/why Harrington's telephone conversations were recorded -- back then, in the 1995 era -- just puzzles me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you know they were recorded? --Modocc (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

See https://abc7news.com/mark-winger-case-abc-2020-the-perfect-lie-rebecca-simic/10522876/. "Harrington's roommate, Susan Collins, had initially told police that someone asked to meet with Harrington on the day of the murders, and that she'd seen Harrington on the phone arranging that meeting. Inside Harrington's car, they found a note written on a bank deposit slip with Mark Winger's name, his address and the time to be there." There is no mention of the phone call being recorded. Being that it is not sourced here or in any of the other cover stories I've read and wikipedia is unreliable and editors do manage to mangle the facts it probably needs to be removed.-Modocc (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's in dispute that there were telephone calls being recorded. I have seen it in a million sources ... and I think I even read it in legal documents / court opinions. I don't have time right now ... but I will go look and see where I found that info. Also, in my readings ... that was one of the "crucial elements" that cracked open the case. It was, sort of, the prosecutor's "smoking gun" ... and it played a big role in the trial ... and in Winger's conviction. The tape-recorded telephone calls let the jury see/hear with their own eyes/ears that Winger was lying about the crime scenario. In any event, I don't think this is in dispute, at all ... but I will later go dig and find sources. I must have seen this info in a bunch of different locations ... and it puzzled me so much that I decided to post a question about it here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Quickly ... here's one source: [6]. Quite a ways down the page, there is a section header of "Let the Trial Begin". It says: In 2002, the trial began. Mark Winger was charged with two counts of first-degree murder. The prosecutors presented convincing evidence, including a recorded phone conversation between him and Roger Harrington planning to meet up that day. As I said, this was part of the trial / court record ... the prosecutors offered it as evidence at trial ... and it was one of the more compelling pieces of evidence against Winger. It happening in court and all, in a public trial, ... I don't think it's in dispute. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of that? We need to rule out a viral error/echo at play getting regurgitated among writers. For one I didn't find it in the two court papers listed in our article. We need at least one far better source than this that is known to check their facts, preferably one which details how it was discovered/found if it even exists. -Modocc (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another quick source: [7]. Another: [8]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Again not reliable enough, a random blog and an entertainment website both recently written that could be echoing our presently unsourced article that was largely initially written by a banned editor. -Modocc (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmmm .... We're veering off-topic here. Whether or not the article is properly sourced is an issue for that article's Talk Page. If I remember correctly, the article page had some sort of "hat note" or template at the top, indicating such. The germane issue here -- at this Reference Desk -- is how / why the Harrington phone calls were tape-recorded, back in 1995. Since this happened in open court -- and was, in fact, the prosecutor's "key evidence" -- that "blew the case wide open" (so to speak) ... I am pretty confident that it happened. Whether or not it is reliably sourced is a totally separate issue. Granted, it's inter-related ... but that's a separate discussion, for a separate venue / forum. In my opinion. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a hat note: This article has multiple issues ... and so forth .... The hat note is a dozen years old, at this point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The recording(s) are not reliably sourced and I've seen such errors slip into other articles that go unchallenged for longer. Moreover, it was the preponderance of evidence that convicted the guy. Regarding the coverage, I'd trust contemporary journalistic sources from 2002, but not recent blogs and entertainment venues that sometimes harvest uncited facts from Murderpedia which cites Wikipedia. If the article has been in error because there was no recording(s) other than of the 911 call then this question of how the recording(s) were obtained is moot. Sorry, but I have to turn my attention to other things. -Modocc (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Right now, the assertion does not seem to be sourced very well. (If at all.) And I agree that some sources will often parrot previous erroneous sources. So, it becomes an erroneous "loop" or "circular evidence". It's a problem, agreed. This has made me even more curious / puzzled about this case. I think I will dig deeper and call some court staff, authors, journalists, etc., who might lead me in the right direction. Let me do some digging. There must be some court records, somewhere. Finding "old" (2002) contemporary news reports seems to be difficult ... as 20 years have passed. And the internet, back then, was not exactly what it is today. Thanks for your input! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved