Humanities desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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.

January 6

Comparison of The Art of War translations?

I would like to find a comparison of the major translations into English of The Art of War, similar to how The_Tale_of_Genji#Selected_English_translations gives an overview of English translations of The Tale of Genji. The section in The Art of War, The_Art_of_War#Notable_translations, only lists the translations and does not make a comparison between them. Thank you for any help on this. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are some sources:

Hope this helps you get started. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince Fahad of Saudi Arabia"

While working on a Wikipedia page I found a paragraph in this article in the December 11, 1976 New York Times:

The prostitution inquiry he said, stemmed from a recent visit to Utica by Prince Fahad of Saudi Arabia. Mayor [of Utica, New York] Hanna said that during the visit, he took the Prince to some nightclubs in the city “and the nightclub owners and the prostitutes there tried to hustle me.”

"Prince Fahad of Saudi Arabia" is also mentioned in an article two days later. I want to determine, or at least narrow down, who is meant by that. It's not essential for the page I'm writing (and might amount to WP:OR by the time we're done) but my curiosity is piqued.

"Fahad" is an alternate form of Fahd. There are several Fahds who are members of the House of Saud and have Wikipedia pages: there may be more that don't have their own page. It's probably not Fahd of Saudi Arabia, who was Crown Prince at the time. More likely it's one of the lower-profile businessman Saudi princes, although nearby Griffiss Air Force Base was open at the time so it could conceivably be one of the military officer princes. Saudi businessmen princes have had interests in the Utica area: one invested in Zogby International at one point. It is also within the realm of possibility that Mayor Hanna just made up this story out of whole cloth. Apocheir (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The then Crown Prince being the referent is not unlikely. We find him addressed as "H. R. H. Prince Fahad Ben Abdoul Aziz Al Saud" here, p. 3, in a letter handwritten by Richard M. Nixon, about to be elected President. The name is misspelled (Azia) in the typewritten version on p. 2 of the pdf. The letter mentions "our mutual friend Mr. Adnan Khashoggi", a notorious arms dealer (and an uncle of Jamal Khashoggi); Adnan Khashoggi's father was the personal physician of Prince Fahd's father. Nixon also attended a lunch at the White House organized for Prince Fahd in 1974.^[1] --Lambiam 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's plausible that the second-most-important person in Saudi government went nightclub-hopping with the mayor of a smallish rust belt city. If he did, it's even less plausible that the only mention of that event was in two articles about the mayor fighting with his police chief. Apocheir (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We only have the mayor's word for it. --Lambiam 09:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. Excluding the Prince Fahds who were too young at the time, in addition to the crown prince Fahd, there's Fahd bin Abdullah Al Saud, Fahd bin Saud Al Saud, Fahd bin Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Saud, and possibly more. Apocheir (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is larger; China or the United States??

Historically it was common for most sources to say that China was larger, but now more sources are saying the United States is larger. Any reason?? I would guess the most likely reason is that the figures for the United States are defined as including all of the Great Lakes. Any other reasons?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are in List of countries and dependencies by area, where the two countries are essentially tied. Reasons for varying numbers (which affect the ranking) are also given there. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This website says:

the United States has a bigger total area than China due it’s the coastal waters off the American island territories and states. The United States occupies a total area of about 3.8 million square miles while China has an area of approximately 3.7million square miles. However, China has a bigger land area than the United States. The Chinese land area is about 2.2% bigger than the United States (3.5 million square miles). China has a land area of approximately 3.6 million square miles, and this land area doesn’t include numerous undisputed territories. Taiwan became a Chinese territory after ROC (Republic of China) was defeated in the 1950 Chinese Civil War. The government of the ROC escaped leaving the people’s republic of China controlling Taiwan and numerous islands. China has two disputed territories which India including Arunachal Pradesh (34,749 sq miles) in South Tibet and Aksai Chin (14,380 sq miles) near Kashmir. If these territories were to be reunited with China, the Chinese land area would be 4% bigger than the U.S. The Chinese have undertaken numerous contentious projects of building in uninhabited islands which they claim in the South China Sea.

The information about Taiwan seems a bit muddled and perhaps "undisputed" really means "disputed". Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And can we really trust a website that includes the garbled mess "due it’s the coastal waters"? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it is a matter of defining (or picking) what counts as a country's area. See also note e in our article on the United States. Make America Large Again! --Lambiam 12:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you started seeing that the US was larger because in 1997 the CIA World Factbook changed the basis on which the US's area was counted, while still claiming to be using the same method for all countries as they did before. See this note in the List of countries and dependencies by area. --174.89.12.107 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine-dash line adds a huge amount of variance to the calculation. 142.127.187.55 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Valkyrie (2008)

I've found only the surnames and military grades of those characters I've asked days ago: Kolbe, Haans, and Helm. Please, can you search about their full names, dates of birth and death, etc.? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.44.223 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably remember ~~Kolbe is without any doubt Hans Kolbe~~, and further information about him remain the object of our most uncertain, if not entirely uninterested expectations nonetheless. Bloods an flesh, well..

Haans by contrast does not appear to be a name found related to the Stauffenberg panorama at large.

Search: intitle:Haans

Although this amounts to a dispense equivalent in terms of speculation just as the opposite assertion just would, let us assert that Hauptmann Haans is fictious, or let's suggest a profile built upon any relevant expectations regarding the dependence of his role on which other are similarly expectable for partners, colleagues, and relatives, as according to a potentialy oriented, or conversally, well, neutral plot. Intriguing details pumped up out of aspects of the real and known history and copied from people, such as captains in the armies, technicians, even, possibly, bureaucrats are probable. Thus the illustrations from your links inspire, but, let's face it, there is no need for a live model [2] on all the set of the figures for the figuration of a credible team, in ~~pseudohistory~~ ~~tales~~ ~~fiction~~ fiction. And that would even work in many cases in the real world. For some time. And then the same applies for the Helm personage, with even the lesser need for an identifiable model as a matter of fact, if you will dare perhaps applying recursivity. You will see it yourself if you ever live through the chance of passing the period through the career, although maybe that's what you're trying to prepare yourself to avoid. In which case, it'll probably be amounting the same, that is, if you're exposing your neighbouring to public outrage, you may also be looking for being gone before calling the removalist van line (SWIM?) . --Askedonty (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then can you help me to find if Kolbe is that one? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.11.85 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the Kolbe at the Wolf's Lair is "without any doubt" Hans Kolbe. Kolbe is a fairly common German surname. --Lambiam 22:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you must be correct - after all I can't even get back to the moment we found the on duty Feldwebel we're looking for had to be precisely a Hans Kolbe. The 56th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), Oberfeldwebel Hans Kolbe above belonged to was dissolved into Korps-Abteilung D in 1943 [3]; notwithstanding the Corp Commander Certificate mentioned in link it's not at all obvious this would have to be leading to a transfert to Grossdeutschland; I'm striking the assertion at once. --Askedonty (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing: what do you call this kind of situation.

That you find out objectively, people prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, people prefer cherry flavor over blueberry flavor, however, if you mix them up in a criss cross, you get opposite results: people objectively prefer blueberry vanilla over cherry chocolate. Do we have a name for this kind of paradox? Thanks. Should be a wrap of questions for now. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This general property is called Intransitivity. --Jayron 32 13:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

67.165.185.178 -- The article Intransitive dice may amuse or amaze you... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a slightly more complicated instance of Simpson's paradox. --Lambiam

Thinking about it some more, I doubt it should be considered a paradox. Given the choice between a serving of ice cream or a serving of hot sauce, offered by itself, I'll go for the ice cream. And I may prefer steak over broccoli. But I don't think steak and ice cream go together well, so I'll have broccoli with hot sauce instead. Utility is not simply additive; if U denotes a utility function, it is not generally the case that U (X-cum-Y) = U (X) + U (Y). --Lambiam 09:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I can go simpler. I generally prefer grape juice over apple juice. But when mixed with cranberry juice, I prefer cranberry apple over cranberry grape. Shrug. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

What's the most number of revotes for the most powerful US Senate position?

Whatever post was most powerful at the time (Senate majority leaders apparently didn't exist in the 1800s and 1700s). Did the legislators ever fail to elect someone in the first vote like the current House Speaker elections? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate has no equivalent position to Speaker; the closest is the President of the Senate, who as the Vice President, is not selected in the same way as the Speaker of the House. The Party leaders in the Senate are elected entirely within each party, the Republicans get no vote as to who the Democratic Senate leader will be, and as such, the situation like what is currently happening in the House is FAR less likely to happen; I don't believe it ever has. The Speaker of the House needs to be elected by the whole house, and no candidate has yet received 50%+1 votes, which is why we have a deadlock. Getting 50%+1 votes of one's own party (which is all that is needed to become Senate Majority Leader, for example) is usually trivial and there have not been any cases, as far as I can remember, where there has been any significant problems with those elections. The President pro Tempore is usually granted more-or-less automatically by unanimous consent to the most experienced member of the majority party, or nearly so (the current president pro tem is Patty Murray, the second-most-senior Democratic senator, as the senior-most, Dianne Feinstein, declined the nomination). Simply put, because the Senate operates under different rules than the House, there is no equivalent election to be so contested. --Jayron 32 15:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that how the House picks its Speaker is up to it. Check Article One of the United States Constitution—no rules in there for how they do it. They could do it via pie-eating contest if they wanted. (Pork pie, perhaps?) The majority requirement is self-imposed, and was changed to plurality for 1855, when the House deadlocked for months over Speaker, following the break-up of the Whig Party over the slavery "question". The UK House of Commons has quite sensibly moved to having a nonpartisan Speaker who does not typically vote except to break ties, and when doing so votes for further debate or to maintain the status quo. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, under the current rules, a Speaker is necessary to conduct business, including voting on rules changes. Had McCarthy not finally won his election, there is no mechanism to change the rules to allow for a plurality vote, or any other rules changes, until after a speaker is named. It would be a catch-22 situation: A speaker who could not be elected under existing rules, and no changes can be made to the rules until a speaker gets elected. --Jayron 32 16:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, eventually enough representatives would have died to change the balance of power one way or the other. Or the next election in two years would have resulted in a different outcome. IIRC, Belgium did quite well without a properly constituted government for nearly two years after the 2019 election. Part of the time, the old government stayed on in an acting role, part of the time there was a provisional government put in place. Only after about 660 days did they finally form a proper government. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

660 days would be a lot worse in America than in Belgium. We don't have caretaker governments and the most common term for Americans who lost re-election but haven't yet reached the constitutionally mandated kicking out day and time is lame ducks. If an old House ever tried to pass laws after noon civil time of the capital it'd literally be an unconstitutional coup attempt

. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The House is only important in the passage of legislation (new laws); the House (and Congress as a whole) is unimportant to the day to day operation of the U.S. Government, which is handled by the Executive Branch (the Administration). There would be some cut-backs of services as some budgets run dry, but certain functions are designed to work even if the budget isn't passed annually. --Jayron 32 13:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a government shutdown from like October 2023 through Jan 3 2025? How are the hundreds of thousands of "non -essential" federal employees supposed to pay their mortgages? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday club

banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(edit conflict) The king doubled down on his claim to be champion of all faiths in his Christmas message when he said:

Our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and gurdwaras have once again united in feeding the hungry, providing love and support throughout the year.

The sentiment echoed that of Janice Mansur in Notícias em português on St Patrick's Day:

Até quando iremos às Igrejas, aos Templos, às Sinagogas, às Mesquitas, aos Terreiros, para aprender a amar o próximo, se não vemos nosso próximo que está tão perto, e não nos relacionamos com ele com menos egoísmo e/ ou amor de verdade?

(How long will we go to the Churches, to the Temples, to the Synagogues, to the Mosques, to the Squares, to learn to love the neighbour, if we don't see our neighbour who is so close and don't relate to him with less egoism and/ or love of truth?)

Yet Charles fixed a Saturday for the coronation despite Friday and Saturday being historically the least popular days for the ceremony (see list below), a convention which allows Jewish people to participate to the full. Making the day a bank holiday aids participation for all, so why did he choose Saturday, the one working day in the week which cannot be a bank holiday? And why have a bank holiday on the following Monday as arranged when no ceremonies are scheduled for that day?

Coronation dates (all Sunday except where stated): 11.5.973, 31.3.978, Wednesday 25.4.1016, 6.1.1017, 3.4.1043, Friday 6.1.1066, Monday 25.12.1066, 26.9.1087. 5.8.1100, Thursday 26.12.1135, 19.12.1154, 3.9.1189, Thursday 27.5.1199, Tuesday 28.10.1216, 19.8.1274, 25.2.1308, 1.2.1327, Thursday 16.7.1377, Monday 13.10.1399, 9.4.1413, 6.11.1429, 28.6.1461, 22.6.1483 (cancelled), 6.7.1483, 30.10.1485, 24.6.1509, 20.2.1547, 1.10.1553, 15.1.1559, Monday 25.7.1603, Thursday 2.2.1626, Tuesday 23.4.1661, Thursday 23.4.1685, Thursday 11.4.1689, Thursday 23.4.1702, Monday 20.10.1714, Wednesday 11.10.1727, Tuesday 22.9.1761, Thursday 19.7.1821, Thursday 8.9.1831, Thursday 28.6.1838, Saturday 9.8.1902, Thursday 22.6.1911, Wednesday 12.5.1937, Tuesday 2.6.1953.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.173.58 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some information on why 6 May may have been chosen as the date. --Jayron 32 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give that article a great deal of credence. It says the coronation is when Charles "officially becomes king". Well, no, actually. He officially and legally became king the instant his mother died on 8 September 2022. Edward VIII was never crowned at all, because he abdicated before his scheduled coronation, but nobody has ever disputed he was king from the moment his father George V died. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says the coronation is when Charles "officially becomes king".

Interestingly enough, the error you quoted seems to have been fixed. It's January 6, 2023 23:19 UTC now and now the article says: Charles ascended to the throne following the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, on the 8th September." instead. Helian James (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this report dated 12 October, when the coronation date was set, the government was saying that there wouldn't be a bank holiday. An extra holiday on the following Monday wasn't announced until 6 November. [4] A coronation on a weekday without a bank holiday would cause chaos. Presumably there was a good reason why it couldn't be on the previous weekend which is the May Day Bank Holiday. I don't think there's been a coronation on a Sunday since 1556, when the established church was still Roman Catholic, so it may be a Protestant thing, but that's just a guess. Despite all the admirable multi-faith messaging, Charles is still the Supreme Head of the Church of England, a fact which is intimately entwined in the coronation ritual. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the (hypothetical) case that Their Majesty The Queeng publicly converts to Islam, Judaism or Dawkinsism, is there a constitutional procedure to depose them or to force their abdication? --Lambiam 09:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. However, there is precedent for the situation where the King leans too much towards Catholicism (*the horror*). See the first Charles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 confirms that the monarch still has to be "in communion with the Church of England", as required by the Act of Settlement 1701. However, the Queen is no longer prohibited from being a Roman Catholic (other faiths were not specified). The Act of Union 1707 also requires the monarch to be a Protestant. [5] That's how the law stands at the moment; my guess is that in that unlikely event, an act of parliament could make a work-around, either disestablishing the CofE or deputising the Supreme Head role in some sort of regency (the advantage of an unwritten constitution and supremacy of parliament).

Besides the example of Charles I quoted above (who was actually a High Church Anglican, but not Protestant enough for the zealots), his second son James II was our last Catholic king, but it didn't end well; he was deposed by the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and replaced by his Protestant daughter and her Dutch husband in a coregency. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, observant Jewish people will not be able to "participate to the full" in this coronation because it's on a Saturday. Those who might have wished to join the crowds cannot use transport, money or carry objects (food, water, etc) through the streets, and those who wish to follow the events on TV, radio or internet are prohibited from doing so until late on the Saturday night. I am pretty sure the OP meant that, but the text got a bit tangled and implied the opposite.

However, as there are so few Jews in the UK at all (approx half of one percent of the population), and an even tinier percentage of that number are observant, I'm not sure this should be a key consideration in setting a public event.

Incidentally, King Charles has made a significant move to accommodate Jewish representation at the ceremony, by inviting the Chief Rabbi to stay at Clarence House the night before the event, so that the rabbi can both fulfil Jewish law and get to the ceremony. Here's a comment piece about it, noting Charles' interesting approach to his role as fidei defensor ([6]). --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous vote in 2022 Chilean Constitutional Plebiscite

Is there any overall data on how the indigenous voters of Chile voted in the 2022 Chilean national plebiscite on the new proposed constitution? A data on how the Mapuche voters voted would also be really helpful. StellarHalo (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the vote was conducted by secret ballot, direct data might have been collected in polls, which, however, are notoriously unreliable. One might hope to deduce something from a comparison of the votes by precinct with statistical data on the geographical distribution of various ethnicities. If possible at all, this will not be a simple exercise. --Lambiam 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 January 6

Contents