Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rmaster1200 (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 4 January 2018 (→I Am An Angry God?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:


December 29

Relation between the social sciences

Earth (Earth science) is a planet in our solar system (Astronomy) which can sustain life (Biology), in particular humans (Human physiology/anatomy). All these study objects, regardless of their relevant lengthscale, are constituted of matter (Chemistry) and, like all matter, subjected to some universal laws (Physics).

I am attempting to understand the basics of all fields of human knowledge, and in particular how they are related. Where this is a relatively clear task for the exact sciences (brief outline above), it seems more difficult for the social sciences/humanities.

Could you try to give a concise outline like above, connecting studies like psychology-antropology-sociology-economics-political science-education-law-linguistics-history-geography-management-finance-literature-art-religion-philosophy-technology-etc., or at least those that you consider the most important ones?

I looked for their definitions and scope and methods, so that is not the question. Rather, given the chance to start over, would we still divide the social sciences and humanities like this—many of them seems to be overlapping? Are some more fundamental than others?

Gnorkel (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have historically been several attempts to define what I might call a taxonomy of knowledge. You might want to start with reading Epistemology and then explore some of the articles linked in its See also section. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2130.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a variety of articles to start your research: Tree of knowledge system (and the xkcd version), unity of science, consilience (and the excellent book by E. O. Wilson. For the historical foundation, see also great chain of being. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already started research for this question and came across many of those links, so maybe I should be a bit more specific. My question only concerns the social sciences. The natural sciences can pretty well be divided based on their field of study (e.g. space, earth, life) but I am looking for unifying concepts and/or ways to divide social sciences (which all study society). The article on consilience say for example "Sociology, economics, and anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans." I find this sentence very promising but I don't seem to find a lot of literature that goes beyond this general idea.
One way to divide the social sciences might be micro (modeling behavior of and interactions between individual agents; which should be the same for all social sciences) and macro (emergent phenomena like markets, the state or stratification). These macro fields could be divided based on the type of interaction (cooperative -> economics; conflict -> politics). Sociology would study the emerging inequality, which is reflected in the state of the agents.
Sorry for such an open question. Hopefully the example above might give you a better idea of what I am after. --Gnorkel (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a certain scale, the development and classifications of the sciences are historical accidents of human history and our method of cognition. There's no necessary reason, for example, why we should understand the nature of fossils before or after we have achieved powered flight. That's why a great medical doctor can be a horrible litigator or art critic, and why one can study a foreign language before or after or while learning algebra. One must learn addition before multiplication, and algebra before calculus; just as one must learn grammar and vocabulary, before one studies composition and literature. But French and Mathematics are separate edifices, and they can be built at different times, although one can't construct their respective "upper floors" before securing their foundations.
The sciences develop according to the vagaries of the human mind and human history. Reality is what it is, regardless of our classifications, which are mental tools, not Platonic Ideals. See history of science and Scientific Progress at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such classification is a mental tool, but some tools are better than others. I also know that the classification of the social sciences is mostly by "historical accident", so my question now is whether we would order them in a more useful way given the chance to do so again—using this new classification as a better mental tool. There are so many overlaps within the social sciences and humanities (e.g. behavioral economics, geopolitics, cultural history, sociology and anthropology converging towards the same thing, etc.) that I wonder whether or not we can draw the boundaries of such fields in a more useful way. --Gnorkel (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk can't really handle speculative questions like this. At best someone can link you to someone else's proposed classifications of knowledge. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be wonderful :-) When I said "I wonder whether or not we can draw the boundaries of such fields in a more useful way" I was actually hoping that someone else tried exactly this. The book consilience was a good pointer, but I would expect there to be more actual classification schemes based on content rather than academic institutes (which are historical accidents as pointed out by another user). --Gnorkel (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question has been addressed at length by many thinkers. One view is that concepts are tools that allow us to arrange our knowledge hierarchically, and that the proper definition of a concept (read classificatory scheme) is contextual. That is, while "living being that converses" might be a useful (and most-likely implicit) definition of human for a child, the general definition for adults in general should be "rational animal" (rationality being the essential characteristic that defines our ability to use language and do most other things only humans can do) while "ape of the genus Homo" might be best for biologists, and "animal that uses tools to make tools" might be good for an anthropologist. None of these definitions contradict each other, or do so only in borderline cases which can be treated ad hoc. For example, a child will not think a person in an irreversible coma has become a monkey, but a judge may decide he is brain dead, based on other evidence.
As regards the humanities specifically, again we are hampered by the fact that many people claim sociology is not a science at all, while psychology is largely in a transitional state, with grand theories like Freudianism and Behaviorism only recently being discredited, definitions of "phenomena" such as Autism and Schizophrenia in flux, and many treatments at the hit-or-miss state with doctors prescribing all sorts of drugs not knowing their efficacy or even their mechanism. How a university might want to classify the humanities in their departments and course catalogs might differ greatly from the opinions of philosophers of science or statisticians or biologists.
So the purpose of the classification will determine which classification is best in that context. There is no single correct answer for all people in all circumstances. Pitfalls to avoid are a priori rationalism, in the Platonic sense of beginning with an abstract premise or theory, and trying to shoehorn reality into it; unnecessary multiplication of concepts (there's no need for a general English word for a buxom blonde of a certain age and measurements--but a casting agent might have the concept of a "Monroe"); and frozen concepts where we use terms like "gay" (a cultural term of the 20th century) to apply to much broader phenomena such as opportunistic homosexuality in prisons or the military, cultural pedophilia in ancient Greece, Rome, and in other indigenous societies, and people who identify with their birth gender yet prefer homosexual sex versus people who identify with the opposite gender, and see themselves as having been born into the wrong type body.
Two recommended works that address definition and classification or conceptualization in depth are the monograph Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand and the rather encyclopedic Introduction To Logic, By H.W.B. Joseph, Oxord (here, in public domain). μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering so thoroughly. You give good arguments on why classification schemes are necessarily contextual. And although I agree, I am more looking for actual ways to classify social sciences rather than meta arguments on the existence of such classifications. --Gnorkel (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound flippant, but you might start with a premade system like the Library of Congress Catalog or Dewey Decimal System or the course catalog of a university. Can you give an actual intellectual school or a definite context you want, or do you want a list of such classifications? (There's even the trivium and the quadrivium, although those are just a bit outdated. :)) μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my question can be interpreted in many ways (but hey if I knew exactly what I was asking for, I would use google instead of the reference desk!). Some context. As a 'hobby', I am making an outline / map / poster of all human knowledge. This includes the major fields of natural and social sciences and the humanities, their main concepts and insights, and how they are related (e.g. biology and chemistry are next to each other with biochemistry on the interface). I am quite happy with how I ordered the natural sciences and technology, but the social sciences and humanities are giving me a headache. I am looking for some way to structure them on a 2D poster that makes sense to "the average scientifically minded person" (a vague definition I know :-))
To give you an idea of what I am after:
https://i.imgur.com/IRvDWJj.jpg (maybe too simple and not really a map but still nice)
http://nada.kth.se/~axelhu/mapthematics.pdf (more complete and with related field close to eachother)
A classification system like Dewey's lacks information on how the categories/subcategories are related. A university curriculum reflects too much historical academic structures like you mentioned, whereas I would like to order things based on content. I am not sure if there have been attempts for a 'graphical classification' or 'graphical outline' of the social sciences that I am after. Or if there is any unifying idea to present their main ideas in an organized fashion rather than as a series of overlapping blobs. If there is, I would be delighted to find out. --Gnorkel (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, then although it's not what you are asking for, you will love this to set as your wallpaper. I originally saw that at Big Think's Strange Maps Blog. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a graphical representation of Wikipedia's own internal wikilinks, arranged by Portals, would be useful (though biased). I have no notion of how to do that, unfortunately. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be interesting for sure. I know something similar has been done for journal articles and citations (eigenfactor.org/map/images/fig3.png). Which portals exist and which don't is rather accidental; maybe it would also be interesting to release some clustering algorithm on all wikipedia articles to see what would be a good way to divide them into categories.--Gnorkel (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a comparable map of, say, Twitter followings. (Leave out the arrows and the clustering is still of potential interest.) How many dimensions are useful? —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this 1958 article named "Towards a classification for social science literature": http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.5090090303/abstract. You have to pay to read the entire thing, but you might find it for free in the collection of a local university. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at it. It is a funny reminder on how the organization of knowledge (books) was such a problem before computers came along. Not sure though if life is easier now with such an avalanche of data around us. Thanks everyone for helping! --Gnorkel (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Had something like this ever happened?

A significant megaproject or resource discovery significantly raises GDP, the rulers don't spend it all on themselves but also use a significant fraction for benefits X, Y, Z to all with only reasonable(ish) exceptions like no felons or non-citizens. Maybe X is starting programs similar to U.S. Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/food stamps, free college if you pass a test that only weeds out those who'd take too long to graduate, being able to buy the cheaper hydroelectricity from the megadam at or below market price instead of exporting it all, cheap gas stations, whatever. There's no very unfair disqualifier like wrong tribe, wrong caste, no Jews.

Then the government tries to stop population growth, makes it harder to become a citizen, greatly increases felony catching effort, raises fines or sin taxes, makes new things illegal (especially ones people are ashamed to admit to but do anyway from human nature like gay sex and porn) and tries to make any excuse to make the majority happier by offering them more benefits from the same sized pie by disqualifying the least popular (i.e. in some places weed smokers and adulterers. Oops, those are now felonies..) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Jayron32 11:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I squinted I could maybe see some partial correspondences with some recently oil-rich states such as Qatar, Bahrain or Venezuala, but I wouldn't like to build a political argument on them. SMW might like to read through the 2017 back numbers of The Economist magazine and see what emerges. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question is vague to the point that you can make it have any answer you want, likely in relation to quite a few countries, depending on how you want to interpret it. "The government" is a ill-defined—one president, one monarch, one absolute dictator, or two, or many? Does it include members of a House (of Representatives or Parliament) or Senate? One term of office, consecutive terms, in succession or spaced out? (The U.S. Government is still the U.S. Government whether it is Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump at the top.) One level of government only, or two or more? (In the U.S. there is a long history of state and local governments attempting – with varying degrees of success – to suppress, circumvent, or ignore federal programs, laws, and regulations.) Changing the laws on the books, or just changing enforcement priorities (or fiddling with regulations and employing executive instructions)? (Again, plenty of examples in U.S. history.)
The basic pattern of three events
  1. Tax revenue increases;
  2. A social program is established or expands;
  3. Attempts are made to restrict access or benefits, to the detriment of a subset of the population (generally as a political ploy);
happening in succession isn't particularly hard to find. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German Interwar Period Military acronyms

Hi, I wonder if anybody can tell me, what these are? They are regarding Signals, Wireless telegraphy

C.S.D of General Kdo 9 in Kassel. Kassel is the place. I can't find the acronym C.S.D. And Kdo. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kdo is "Kommando", something like an Area Command or Group, Kdo 9 was the "Corps Area" controlled from Kassel. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the source document which you didnt mention https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sNVKDp-yiJWTNxS0FIcV95S3M/edit it would seem C.S.D is a British acronym and I suspect an error for C.S.O which is Chief Signals Officer which is used later in the document. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MilborneOne, thanks. It's seems plausable. The CSDIC which was a british outfit, undertook the interrogation on Rndewig, so they would write the I-89 document from their perspective anyway. Cool. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake visiting dignitary

I'm trying to find more information about a situation I've read with different variations. It concerns the supposed emissary of some far-flung but important dignitary (a sultan maybe, or emperor) who is going to visit some kingdom and has sent this emissary in advance to ensure he receives the proper welcome. The emissary presents the local ruler with fancy credentials and apparently lavish gifts and then spends the next several weeks laying plans for this dignitary who will be along shortly. Of course there is no dignitary and at some point the emissary takes off with a lot of loot and it turns out that the lavish gifts were just cheap fakes or forgeries. I've seen variations of this in various unsourced collections of "weird history" I read as a child (not written by Charles Fort perhaps, but of that kind). I have no doubt that the story itself is fake - or at least wildly exaggerated - but I'd like to find the source, if any. The closest I've come is the story of Princess Caraboo, but this is very distinctly different: the king/shah/etc. never actually appears; the conman never presents himself to be anything more than a servant. Rings any bells? I don't recall a lot of details, but I think that's because very few were ever given (as would be typical for forteana). Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Prester John. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather long article; skimming it seems to mention no apparent scam by a fake emissary. Can yo be more specific? μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps relating to: Then in 1306, 30 Ethiopian ambassadors from Emperor Wedem Arad came to Europe, and Prester John was mentioned as the patriarch of their church in a record of their visit. Whereas the identity or even existence of Prester John is/was questionable, the Emperor was legitimate. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E814:317E:7D5A:EEE5 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I linked Prester John because I remember reading, many years ago, a story – presented as true but quite possibly not – that sometime in the Middle Ages or Early Renaissance an "emissary" turned up at an important Court, perhaps Venice or Rome, claiming to represent Prester John and bearing a letter supposedly from said worthy asking for monetary aid in his struggle against the Saracens (or a comparable non-Christian foe). In the story the "emissary" departed with a tidy sum and the donators waited in vain for any further word from the legendary ruler. The story was presumably based on the actual visit to Pope Eugene III by Hugh of Jabala in 1144-5, during which Hugh told Otto of Freising about the supposedly real Prester John. The episode is mentioned in the 4th para of Section 1 of the Prester John article, so I thought you'd have no trouble spotting it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not psychics. You now tell us you vaguely remember a story about Hugh of Jabala, and Hugh of Jabala is mentioned in that article, but no mention is made of a scam, or his absconding with huge sums and not reporting back as promised. How were we to jump from a mention of Hugh of Jabala to your vague memory form your original post, "See Prester John"? μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to assume numerous people have run Prestor John emissary scams. It would be far too good of a setup to resist. ...But I have never actually read an account of such a scam. Have I just not read the right books, or do no such stories survive? That'd be a pity. ApLundell (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really matching your scenario, but I thought of the Dreadnought hoax when I saw the title of your question. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never having heard of the "Dreadnought hoax", my first thought was that it was an allusion to this. 2A00:23C0:79B9:9100:C902:53EB:7D93:D534 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the 17th century it was quite common at the Chinese imperial court for foreign devils to turn up claiming to be ambassadors, presenting gifts from non-existent princes and receiving in return higher-value gifts, hospitality and trading rights. --Antiquary (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Very good - thank you! I'm sure the stories I read were meant to be Europe-based, but it was interesting to see such a similar scene at work in China. That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I recall one of the stories I'd read had a character named "Riza Bey" (not sure if he was the emissary or the supposed visitor), but it's apparently a common enough name. Ahmet Rıza (Bey is a kind of title) has tantalizing similarities, but is missing the deception, etc. Maybe the stories I read were half-baked slander about him and the Young Turks. Matt Deres (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Law revisor

Is there an occupation of law revisor (i.e. someone who prepares a revised edition of the laws or state code)? And is it as widespread as that of law librarian>?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Law commission.--Shantavira|feed me 11:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguine Temperament: Lack of Blood, or too much of it?

The article on Humorism states that the sanguine temperament is associated with the Blood. For the other humors, it goes on to say that the temperament is caused by an excess of the humor: for example, an excess of Black Bile makes one melancholic. However, sanguine means "lack of blood", and the article is unclear on whether it is an excess of Blood, or the lack of it, that makes a person sanguine. Can someone point me towards a reputable online resource that answers this question? OldTimeNESter (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguine does not mean lack of blood.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you know, you are correct, Baseball Bugs. I thought I read that many years ago, and since then I must have assumed that since "sans" means without, "sanguine" meant "without blood". Thanks for the correction! OldTimeNESter (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of those language oddities! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NESter isn't the first I've seen fooled like this. I think it has to do with "exsanguinated" being used a million times for every one time a writer or speaker feels the need to point out a character's full of the stuff. If you never see a word's opposite, it kind of ceases to have an opposite after a while. You start hearing sanguianything, you start thinking vampires and razorblades. Roughly the same deal with terminators and exterminators, but less confusing in hindsight. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs's link above says "thought in medieval physiology to spring from an excess of blood".
To back that up, Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories (p. 235) says: "Later, Galen systematized the relationship of the Empedoclean / Hippocratic notions of elements/humors into a general personality theory of temperaments where an excess of blood characterized the sanguine (warmhearted, cheerful) person". Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the ancient origins, but the system evolved to the point where there were five humors and Phlegmatic was redefined as the balanced personality type; certainly not due to an excess of phlegm. At that point it was a matter of hot/cold/wet/dry analogy, and the actual "balance" of liquids was discounted. I'd also like to see someone with a gallon of black bile. Nowadays we use the term sanguine, and it has nothing to do with an excess of blood, although it may have been though to do so at Galen's time. We could also look at the history of passion, which was a terrible thing for the greeks, and an ultimate aspiration for most modern inspirational speakers. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon dance music

What's that magic-show-end-of-the-pier-type music used for the naked balloon dance? See The Greatest Show on Legs or video clips all over YouTube. Thanks. 86.187.169.231 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Youtube clips had the name in the comments: Tea for Two. Here is a link to the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLDHCDz7S2g. OldTimeNESter (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Tea for Two (song). Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed that famous 1958 cha-cha-chá version by Tommy Dorsey and his Orchestra starring Warren Covington that is most associated. The sort of tune that the lovely Margarita Pracatan might have enjoyed banging out, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... watching the naked balloon dancers accompanied by Anita's fast-paced version of T 4 2 might have been fun too. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Correct name for Bosnisch Novy in Bosnia

Happy New Year to everybody. Does anybody know where the correct location is for Bosnisch Novy in Bosnia. Page 50 IF-179 Seabourne Vol. IV, PT. 2 [2]. I can't locate it. It is the German name Bosnisch Novy. I don't know what the actual name is. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Novi Grad, Republika Srpska, previously known as Bosanski Novi (which sounds fairly close to your German name). Wymspen (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it Wymspen, I came up with the same answer. "Bosnisch" is German for "Bosnian", so it was probably a transcription error before the document was translated into English. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our Bosnian language article says: "The name "Bosnian language" is a controversial issue for some Croats and Serbs, who also refer to it as the "Bosniak" language (Serbo-Croatian: bošnjački / бошњачки; [bǒʃɲaːtʃkiː]). Bosniak linguists however insist that the only legitimate name is "Bosnian" language (bosanski)". So somebody has translated "Bosanski" as "Bosnisch". Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the name of a town, the adjective more likely describes the location than the language. With Novi meaning something like Newtown (in a place name), this would be the Bosnian Newtown, meaning the one in Bosnia. Wymspen (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guy's. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, novi simply means "new". Novi Grad (see also Novograd, Novgorod) means "new town". See Grad (toponymy). μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But when the name is an adjective, it's reasonable to assume that "town" is implied. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absurd, baseless assertion. Provide a citation or just an example of a Slavic town named simply Novy or some alternative of that. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bosnisch Novy means Bosnian New, or New Bosnian in the normal English word order. But New Bosnian what? Novy is masculine, which fits 'grad'. What else would you suppose is intended there? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnisch is a German word. Ge me a Bosnian term, or an example of a Slavic placename consiting simply of Nowy, and I will suppose something based on evidence. I won't speculate on a garbled translation. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not discussing a place called simply "Nowy" or "Novi" or any other one-word name. Garbled it may be, but the place we're talking about has been called "Bosnisch Novy". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Bosnian language Wikipedia still calls it Bosanski Novi. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[3] suggests "renamed Novi Grad by the authorities of Republika Srpska. The State authorities use dual name Bosanski Novi/Novi Grad". I presume state here refers to some part of the central government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As noted in our article the official? municipality website which I think is in the Bosnian language seems to also use Novi Grad [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These sources have some more info on the renaming of those and other places [5] [6]. BTW I admit I missed this before, but our article has some brief info on the old name:

The town was first mentioned in 1280 under the Roman name of Castrum Novum, which, literally translated from Latin, means "new town". In 1895, during Austro-Hungarian rule, the town was officially named Bosanski Novi.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Has the United States, by definition, always been a colonial power since independence?

Was the American opposition to the colonialism of Great Britain and France and its continuation especially during and in the aftermath of the Second World War an example of hypocrisy or double standard that resulted from saltwater fallacy, the notion that colonialism only applies to oversea territories? The only major difference between the British Empire after Statute of Westminster and the United States was that the former was exploitative colonialism and the latter had always been settler colonialism. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the one that said, four days ago, "Wikipedia is not a forum"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to this? I was only quoting the official policy guideline for this site in order to get people to have actual discussion on improving articles instead of engaging in pointless argument that would never reach a consensus or succeed in persuading the opposing side. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am only asking this because the article on colonialism includes more traditional land empires like the Russian Empire as an example. I am aware that the article is not in its best but its improvement is the primary reason why I am asking this in the first place. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would not have considered itself such.
The USA's early westward expansion was not thought of as colonization, but the country's inevitable expansion into a territory it already considered part of its mandate. Manifest Destiny would be the article you want.
Of course, the people already living there would have described the situation very differently. ApLundell (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on your definitions. First, define what you mean by colonialism, then decide if the U.S. took those actions at any particular time. Arguments can be made both ways depending on how you want to define your terms. --Jayron32 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

70.95.44.93: actually, the U.S. government didn't own any land at independence -- it was the individual states which had land claims. Reconciling the various state claims, persuading states to drop some of the more theoretical and remote claims, etc. was one of the tasks of the Continental Congress or Confederation Congress, culminating in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787... AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claims like the Connecticut Western Reserve. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_policing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Why is there no article like this for the US? Benjamin (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't create it? --Jayron32 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to be sure the information I was looking for wasn't already in another article, perhaps by a different name or scope I didn't realize. Are there sources? Benjamin (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues seem to be covered by other articles, such as Mass surveillance in the United States, which is a large article leading to interesting places. Perhaps that will give you a start. --Jayron32 20:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the US it is more commonly referred to as "working undercover" (e.g. Undercover operation, see section: Plainclothes law enforcement). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3410:B2CC:5D3A:A0AC (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Least painful age of womanhood

At what age is a human female's losing her virginity least painful? 83.137.1.204 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... first we have to establish whether age has anything to do with the level of pain experienced (or not). Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If she never uses tampons, exercises strongly enough to affect the hymen or otherwise stretches it (i.e. beforehand to try to make it hurt less) then logically probably before feminine dryness sets in, after the guy's done it enough to do it very slowly without becoming too horny and speeding up and assuming similar ages possibly young womanhood when human tissue is most elastic (unless the average penis width to hymen opening width falls behind the adult ratio at some point which I don't really want to know but seems possible as boys have puberty later and girls are taller than boys temporarily. Of course she should wait till she's 100% ready) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I was hoping for a number of years. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geeze trying to figure this out. I don't even! "A colposcope initially equipped with an Olympus camera, but now with a video camera attached has been used since 1994. Since 1994 the department has performed more than 100 examinations of children...." -- PMID 10641926. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As SMW is trying to tell you, it's got more to do with your specific physical condition, along with your being willing and ready, than it has to do with any particular age. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that all the respondents here are male. They know best about these things, of course. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
At least, you think they are. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Woof. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
200 years old should do it in the absence of major medical breakthroughs on aging and longevity. I guess you could extend it to 10000 to cover that. You got to figure that after that, the difference between 10k and 1 billion years old is probably very small. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

shame on CVS

Recently, I saw this on the CNN website. It was about CVS somewhere in Los Angeles closing their pharmacy before Modern Family star Sarah Hyland could pick up her needed medication(s). That caused an outrage. What is CVS doing so nothing like this ever happens again?2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean closing for the day, or closing permanently? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the day. dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5196125/Sarah-Hyland-blasts-CVS-not-giving-kidney-medicine.html (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should ask CVS, I really don't see how Wikipedia is supposed to know. And could you not put things like 'shame on' in the title, that sounds like pushing a point of view rather than asking a question. Wikipedia is not a forum and should not be misused as one. Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One could also say shame on the actress, for waiting till the last minute to try to get something her life supposedly depends on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: You should read the article. I posted the URL above, but I refused to link it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. The website had the wrong closing time, and they were closed before they got the med ready. So why did she wait till she was out to try to get more? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?

carrots→ 14:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am (probably) not Sarah Hyland (as far as I know). Maybe someone who is or has been Sarah Hyland can answer that question. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's complaint is an invitation to debate, and should have been zapped immediately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather amusingly, they managed to illustrate their article with a photo of a CVS Pharmacy, withe a big red 24 hour sign. There is usually an emergency pharmacy open somewhere - you may just have to make a bit more effort to find it. Wymspen (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General background: Many CVS Pharmacy stores are open 24 hours (including the one closest to my home), but the pharmacy inside of the store has more limited hours now. You can no longer pickup a prescription when the pharmacy is closed, even though the store is open.--Thomprod (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty-state strategy equivalent in other nations

In U.S., they have this strategy called Fifty-state strategy where a political party like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are known to plan to win votes from all fifty states during the presidential election. Are there any equivalents to this strategy in other nations? Donmust90 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Fifty-state strategy. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Electoral College is atypical of democratic states - most of the others do not consider it democratic to allow the second placed candidate to win the presidency, even though someone else had more votes. In any country with a proportional representation system of elections, where the total number of votes for each party is significant in determining the number of seats won, all parties (except specifically regional ones) are likely to put up candidates everywhere. Even in a first pas the post system like the UK, the main parties all try to have candidates in every constituency. They may not expect to win, but the total vote share can be significant - for example in determining the right to put party political broadcasts on TV. Wymspen (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which counties of the Sun Belt

Which counties of US are part of the Sun Belt? Donmust90 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Sun Belt (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did the name Bavaria arise?

Of course, I did have a look at History of Bavaria, but I coulnd't find any really pertinent information on when actually the Latin term Bavaria provably occurred as a geographical designation for the first time.--Siebi (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Siebi: I found an extremely unreliable source that says: "The tribe that gave the territory its name was the Baiovarii (Bavarians), which settled in the south between 488 and 520 ce.". This information is probably unreliable because I couldn't edit it. https://www.britannica.com/place/Bavaria (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: Thanks for answering. To clarify that: I've been familiar with the fact that the name Bavaria is derived from the tribal name, but that is not my question, in fact, which I tried to make clear by the emphasizing term geographical above... I simply wanted to know when the name Bavaria as such is first documented.--Siebi (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know. My point was that it was probably at some point in space and time after they settled there (although I admit that doesn't narrow it down by much). I'll try to find more. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Siebi (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Siebi: I found a website that says: "The Lex Baiuvariorum (Bavarian law) is the oldest surviving Latin document of any extent composed in Bavaria and the most important source for the early history of Bavaria." and it links to here. Its from around 820-820. It seems very likely that it does refer to the geographical place, and not the people, but I am not an expert. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about the specific spelling "Bavaria"? (Instead of other forms that also mean what we call Bavaria, like Baiovarii or Baiuvariorum, etc.) If so, Pope Honorius III corresponded with the "dux Bavariae" several times in 1218. That was the earliest source that sprung to mind immediately, but I'm sure that's not the earliest mention. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Am An Angry God?

Where does the phrase "I am an angry God" come from? I've heard it in a few Stuart Ashen videos. Rmaster1200 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=818646508"