Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • 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.

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.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

May 17[edit]

Funerals of military/police personnel being held at large event venues[edit]

In the United States, there have been cases where deceased military or police personnel to have their funerals to take place in large venues such as arenas or stadiums. A famous example would be Chris Kyle, who was given a public memorial service at AT&T Stadium following his murder. How common is this practice in the United States and outside the US? Based on a search, it appears that there has been at least one example in Canada (where three RCMP had a memorial service in an arena following their deaths in a terrorist attack), but is it also common in Canada? Outside of these two countries, it seems that arena and stadium funerals are more common for sports or political personalities, but what about military and police? And why such large venues in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The "why" should be obvious, it is expected that large numbers of people would want to attend. Note that that is not meant to be a generalization to all military or police funerals, only that when such funerals are held in stadiums it is because large numbers of people are expected to want to attend those particular funerals. --Khajidha (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Per Khajidha, funerals can be held in any particular venue (or none at all. Some people don't have funerals). The choice of venue is not mandated by any rule or law or anything else that I know. I guess if you're expecting 10,000 people to show up, you would need a venue that big. --Jayron32 12:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The funeral of Ronald Reagan was held in the Capitol Rotunda and "The general public stood in long lines waiting for a turn to pay their respects to the president. About 5,000 per hour passed the casket, after waiting up to seven hours. In all, 104,684 paid their respects when Reagan lay in state.[29][30]". Some critics of Reagan's policies at the time called this event the "Reagasm". I was surprised to not find a redirect under that name. It's not just a US thing: the Funeral of Pope John Paul II article mentions:

The event had an estimated viewership of over 2 billion people; the Catholic Church claims only 1.3 billion among its members. The funeral of John Paul II was by far the largest funeral in the history of the world. In lieu of a public viewing at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, as was tradition, immense digital screens instead broadcast the Mass of Requiem and subsequent Rite of Interment to those in the pope's cathedral church outside the confines of Vatican City. The same digital screens were hoisted at several sites in Rome, including the Circus Maximus, and at specially designated campsites outside the city for the millions of pilgrims who descended on the city.[1]

The funeral was perhaps the most-watched live event in the history of television. Because people in North America understood that the service took place during the early morning hours on their side of the Atlantic, many awoke to view the funeral, and others taped it for a historical record. In addition, several television networks in the Americas rebroadcast the funeral later in the day.

I was going to look at a few more (I started by typing "funeral of" into the search box and looking at the autocomplete suggestions) but I think I'll stop after that one. One learns so many things on Wikipedia. (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ancestors of Borte Chino[edit]

Without giving any references, Wikidata traces Genghis Khan's legendary ancestory, Borte Chino, to the Tibetan king Thothori Nyantsen. The intermediary ancestors are given as Tengri Khan, Namri Songtsen, Takri Nyenzig, Drongnyen Deru, and Trinyen Songsten. Where is this information coming from? déhanchements (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled Family tree of Genghis Khan traces his family tree back to Borte Chino and states the genealogy comes from the The Secret History of the Mongols, a c. 13th century document. --Jayron32 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy Wikilink, so that you don't get the mobile version if you're on a computer: d:Q662696.
Yesükhei Baatar, two of those entries were added by d:User:Melderick. You could ask them where they got them from. --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Christian church opposed to washing[edit]

Over at Alice Clark (singer), there is a mention of "a religious order that forbade either bathing or washing hair, I don't recall exactly which." This would have been in the late 1960s, in the US. Which group might that be? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have read historical novels where the Knights Templar had rules similar to that, if correct it would probably have something to do with Latin Rule. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
But it's hard to see how that would apply in Brooklyn in the 1960s... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe they found the Latin Rule and decided to go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The Latin Rule doesn't say anything about bathing or washing hair (although it does say they should keep their hair short). Some weird 20th century American sect probably isn't going to have much in common with a medieval monastic order of knights. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't find anything in any google search, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are MANY small religious sects which proliferated in the 20th century, often with communities that may have only had a few dozen adherents, and if you can think of a rule, there was probably a sect that had it. It's entirely plausible. --Jayron32 12:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 In this discussion of the rule [1] (at p. 16) it is noted:

'neatness is especially necessary inwardly and outwardly in those who serve the highest author, as he himself attested who said, "make yourself clean," because "I am pure and without sin" (chap. 28).'

Michael the Syrian, page 27, says "monastic rule... not bathing" [2]. Found it in this [3] discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, traditional Christian aversion to hygiene is usually associated with hermits and ascetics, and certain ascetic-influenced monastic orders of the eastern Mediterranean. It doesn't have much to do with making soul records or having children, so it seems to me that Alice Clark would be more likely to be part of a modern cult-like group... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: The quoted comment potentially could be related to the ancient Jewish custom of the Nazirite, which was a system whereby some people would swear to practice certain customs for a period of time or for life, which included, among other things, not cutting hair and abstaining from alcohol. To my eye it seems reminiscent of some of the gambling self-help mechanisms nowadays whereby people have themselves banned from casinos, only targeted at alcoholism, but I may be putting much too secular a spin on it with that. In any case, Judaism being like it is, the custom apparently expanded to not combing hair, because a comb might pull out hairs, and potentially could limit the washing of hair by the same logic. Among Christians, the idea is (apparently) confused with that of a Nazarene, someone who grew up in Nazareth, as Jesus did; hence the movies showing Jesus as long-haired, which could have been the case, but perhaps not as a Nazirite, since there are well-known accounts of Jesus drinking with publicians and taking wine on the Cross. According to our article, Rastafarianism is one modern group that practices this (hence, like Muslims and Mormons, they have sometimes been culturally associated with marijuana instead). Wnt (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - that makes sense. I've only just realised that photos of Clark (such as here) show her with hair apparently wrapped tightly in a scarf or turban. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nature in South Africa[edit]

How many private game farms and nature reserves are there in South Africa, excluding the 20 National Parks listed by Google. Thank you Anton (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We have some listed at Associated Private Nature Reserves and you might also look at the category Nature reserves in South Africa. (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Streets with no addresses[edit]

Is there a term for a street that has no addresses? For example, a street called "First Avenue" where no buildings along it or near it have an address like "123 First Avenue". Thanks for any help. RoamingData (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any special terminology for merely not having addresses. There is the terminology Limited-access road and Controlled-access highway (which are sometimes interchangeable, and sometimes not, depending on the jurisdiction) for roads (not streets, though the distinction is also subtle as well) where property owners along the road are not allowed to have driveway access to the road. But that only covers that situation, and does not cover roads and/or streets where someone could build a structure and have an address on it, but just haven't yet. I am not aware of any special word or phrase to describe that. --Jayron32 17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As implied by the history in House numbering, more than two or three hundred years ago, it would have been called "normal". And if you look at city directories for rural communities, often there was no numbering until well into the 20th century. And the numbering of farm roads is a pretty recent development - all driven by the need to be able to find someone, such as if there's a fire or medical emergency. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Falsehoods programmers believe about addresses doesn't even mention that type of street, but gives lots of other interesting edge cases. (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One other question — are you interested in streets with no buildings (and thus no addresses), or do you only want streets with address-less buildings? I've been in US towns where some residential blocks are really small, and all houses in some blocks face the same direction (i.e. the north-south streets may have no addresses because all the houses face the east-west streets). In the latter case, there could be addresses if the houses had been built with the proper orientation, or maybe there aren't any buildings at all, because the street was never developed or the area suffered from severe urban decay, e.g. E. 39th Street in Cairo, Illinois. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

In Ghana, most cities do not have street addresses. The BBC reported on it: (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Gem fr (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The First Conspiracy[edit]

How historically accurate is The First Conspiracy by Brad Meltzer? --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything about it in Wikipedia? What does he say the first conspiracy is? The assassination of Julius Caesar was a long time ago, but that wasn't necessarily the first one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The First Conspiracy: The Secret Plot to Kill George Washington. Not sure if "first conspiracy" as in first in the United States, or a play on "first lady". Pretty sure the author doesn't think conspiracies started in the 18th century. Anyway, the book is very new, and I can't find any reviews of it by historians. The book is said to be the product of recent scholarship that has not received widespread attention prior to the book, but the authors of this book are fiction writers, not scholars. They did not uncover any new information themselves. It sounds like they mention their sources, so until a historian reads the book and weighs in, I think the best you could do is look up those sources and see if it matches up. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
A play on "first lady"? This was some time before he was president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And? Anyway, in one of his interviews, Meltzer didn't explicitly say why he called it "The First", but he kept mentioned things of the sort, "The United States' first ____", so I guess there you go, that's probably what was on his mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure the sources match up, I'm just not sure how well they support his thesis. The author claims that there was a massive conspiracy being run by New York's loyalist governor in exile William Tryon, that included recruiting loyalists to join the King's forces upon the arrival of British troops in New York, bribing Continental army soldiers to betray Washington, destroying King's bridge (the only major connection between and Manhattan and the mainland), and lastly, killing Washington himself. The author always seems to follow his amazing revelations with what appear to me to be rather weak sources. I was wondering if any historians felt the some way.
William Tryon#American Revolutionary War does mention the conspiracy, but the whole section is fairly recent, and has only one source: the book in question. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. That's a serious problem. A claim does not gain extra credibility or significance from being filtered through a non-expert work. Does the book give any clear indication of which claims are sourced where, or at least a pile of all his sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
A brief description of the 1776 "Hickey Plot" is in The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn, Henry Phelps Johnston, Long Island Historical Society, (Brooklym 1878) in a footnote on p. 92. It was apparently well known then, the passage starts: "The particulars of this plot need hardly be repeated". Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, we have an article; Thomas Hickey (soldier), who "was tried and executed for mutiny and sedition, and he may have been involved in an assassination plot against George Washington in 1776" (my emphasis). Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The author does include a bibliography in the back, but I have neither the time nor the interest to look through it. Interestingly, the author mentions that he got the idea for the book from a footnote in another book, although he can’t remember which. Perhaps, he is referring to the work you mentioned. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 18[edit]

Ecuador declares "the exercise of the right to inviolability of correspondence, freedom of information, and freedom of association and assembly is suspended". Nobody notices but TeleSUR.[edit]

TeleSUR published an article today [4] that said that Ecuador had suspended the above rights. It puts this in the context of Ola Bini, and says that these rights were suspended only for prisoners. I tracked down the original decree as published on Twitter (!) by the verified poster (Secretaria General de Comunicacion), and I'm actually not sure it's even that limited: it declares an emergency in prisons and then says "El Decreto tambien establece:" (the decree also establishes) the above conditions. So the way I read it (not being at all good in Spanish), they just suspended these rights in the whole country! Maybe there's some limit to how far decrees can go, though that seems impossibly optimistic, which is why it's good to have secondary source coverage.

IS there any secondary source coverage other than TeleSUR? I get literally nothing out of Google but one random tweet, and Duckduckgo and Bing seem to pad their results for it with junk as far as I can tell. Can a country really sink into an abandonment of basic principles and the entire global media dares not to comment? Wnt (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's because TeleSur is run by the Venezuelan government. Or maybe it's untrue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
When you say "maybe it's untrue", do you mean that this posting by a verified Twitter account is not from the Ecuadorian government, or that the interpretations that I, Ola Bini's supporters, and TeleSUR take from it are incorrect? From my perusal recently, TeleSUR doesn't seem any less reliable than Western media. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I think they're only talking about the prison system, or the "social rehabilitation centers" as they call it. And it's for 60 days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19[edit]

Fahrenheit's cause of death[edit]

Is there a source for Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit's cause of death at age 50? Google suggests mercury poisoning, but nothing better than that. (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nearly every source I can see merely says he died. except his entry in Deutsche Biographie, which says "Als F. 1736 in Den Haag weilte, um ein Patent auf eine Wasserhebemaschine (eine Art Zentrifugalpumpe) anzumelden, erkrankte er und starb." (rough translation: While he was in the Hague in 1736 to apply for a patent on a hoist for water (a kind of centrifugal pump), he fell ill and died). So it was an illness, but which illness the source doesn't say. Hopefully someone else has better luck. (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"He died of a fever/and no one could save Herr/Fahrenheit was the end of ....."--Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Did he die suddenly, or by degrees? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What cars have had more than a dozen generations?[edit]

All I've found are the Ford F pickups, are there more? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Ford Model A was produced for a total of seven years. How many generations does that count as? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
How many times did it get redesigned? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
How many times have the Ford F pickups been redesigned? And how do you define "redesigned"? Do they not make some changes every year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The generations listed in articles like the Ford F-series article. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Toyota Corolla (E210) is the twelfth generation of the Corolla", Chrysler New Yorker#1994–1997 (14th generation), and Oldsmobile 98#Twelfth_generation (1991–1996) show up with a quick search. There might be others. Honda Civic 11th generation is expected in a year or two. I guess of those, only the New Yorker is more than a dozen. (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mercedes E-Class and S-Class go back more than ten generations each, although they weren't officially called that way until the 90s (before that it was just "E" or "S" in the model number). (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point, I couldn't begin to count how many Porsche 911's there were. (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Are these "generation" tags assigned by the manufacturer or by outsiders ("fans", if you will)? Is a "generation" in a Ford model line actually comparable to a "generation" in a Chevrolet model line? Not to mention "generations" in vehicles from manufacturers in other countries. What makes for a distinction between 2 "generations"? Even in the same model line. --Khajidha (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Chief Judge of NY party affiliations[edit]

There were twenty Chief Judges of New York between 1870 and 1974, during which period the position was elected. Twelve of these twenty men were both Democratic and Republican, and two of the other eight were Republican and something else. I can understand one or two switching parties while in office, but not twelve; what does this indicate? Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You may have to look at the individuals. For example, Benjamin N. Cardozo was listed on both party's tickets in the same year, at least once. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Bugs is correct...It isn’t a case of the politician “switching” parties, but rather that they were endorsed by both major parties (effectively running unopposed). This is actually quite common in New York politics. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Drifting off topic, this is an interesting example of the major differences between US and UK political culture which are sometimes overlooked. In the UK it would be considered outrageously inappropriate, if not corrupt, for a judge to be publically endorsed by any political party, and for that judge to express a political leaning in any way linked to his/her judgeship. Of course, in the UK judges (I link the article re England and Wales to avoid complications) are not elected, but appointed via a presumptively non-political process (which no Wikipedia article I've been able to find describes), very different to the US system. (To be clear, I'm not saying that the US system is wrong.) {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a "US system"; there are 50 state systems, and many of those have changed over the years. Some are partisan, some aren't; some are elected, some are appointed, some are appointed and then subject to retention elections (California does that, for example.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20[edit]

British Empire[edit]

Please would you assist, during the height of the British Empire, and to narrow the scope, lets say just during the Victorian era, to what side of the political spectrum did the vote and government fall? I understand from research that the current political parties were not in existence. I understand too that there was a vote every 4 years or so and that the governing party may have changed to one run by the opposition but the information I find doesn't show which party had which lead, right or left. Thanks Anton (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Whigs (British political party) and Tories (British political party)
Pretty sure you must not read those as "left" or "right" in the modern sense, but just see for yourself
also Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections
Gem fr (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(ec)There's a lot of relevant information in our article List of United Kingdom general elections. Important things to note are the change in the number of eligible electors over time and the removal of rotten boroughs, where several MPs were elected by a handful of voters. Of course the Whigs were not the same as the Liberal Party (UK), let alone the current Liberal Democrats (UK). Mikenorton (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that in the spectrum of the day, the “center-left” predominated... however, what constituted the spectrum of “left” and “right” in those days was very different from what it is today. Ideas that are mainstream today were quite radical back then. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC) -- as hinted at by Gem_fr above, during parts of the Victorian period, advocates of the rights of factory workers were to be found among the Tory party. Some, such as Michael Thomas Sadler, Richard Oastler, and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, were completely sincere, while others did it to annoy the Whigs (who were aligned with factory owners)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It can be a bit misleading to try to draw parallels between 19th century and modern politics. Gladstonian liberalism espoused " government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets... self-help and freedom of choice. Gladstonian liberalism also emphasised free trade, [and] little government intervention in the economy...", which reads rather like a modern Conservative manifesto. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
At least early in the Victorian period, large rural landowners were influential in the Tory party, while factory owners and big merchants were influential in the Whig party. Whigs were usually more open to change and "reform" than Tories were, but the kinds of reform that got passed with Whig support were often favorable to the interests of factory owners and big merchants... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That's because in modern terms, in Anglophone politics, BOTH modern Conservative (center-right) and Liberal (center-left) traditions grew out of classical liberalism. Modern terms like neoconservatism and neoliberalism are often used by actual political scientists to describe overlapping political philosophies, often shared by the same people. People like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are often described using both terms. It should be noted that in U.S. popular press, the term "liberal" is used in place of "leftist", but in the traditional sense even the Republican Party is a liberal political party, though it is decidedly NOT a "leftist" party by any stretch. Liberalism usually means a belief in small government and market economy, what is commonly called in the U.S. libertarianism, but both parties largely espouse some version of it, with the Republicans favoring economic libertarianism and Democrats favoring social libertarianism, but both being basically liberal parties in the "classical liberalism" sense. Even in Victorian times in the UK, the major political divides were between which kind of Liberalism; it was not seriously considered that non-liberal ideas like monarchism or absolutism or authoritarianism were viable political philosophies in the Anglophone tradition. During the long 17th century, over the course of things like the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, liberalism became the almost inevitable political philosophy of Britain and America (see also Whig history). The most important thing to remember, especially in American political discourse, is that the term "liberal" is applied in a very different sense than actual political scientists would use it. All modern American and British politics is essentially liberal in nature, though it varies in which side (right or left) it falls on. --Jayron32 12:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Name of an architectural element[edit]

Nice roof (41323754891).jpg

Does someone know how to call the iron "gazebo like" structure on the top of the roof?--JotaCartas (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The nearest architectural term I can find may be Cresting (architecture), though this looks rather large for that. Still looking. --Jayron32 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't know its term of art, but it also functions as a viewpoint, accessible from the roof. See this picture taken from on top of the roof (The address is Rua de Alexandre Braga 24 in Porto, by the way, should that help someone find more info on a possible term). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case, then it is a type of Belvedere (structure), which is defined by purpose, not design; a belvedere is any design element whose purpose is to give someone a beautiful view. --Jayron32 16:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. Belvedere looks good to me. In Commons will be "Category:Belvederes (roof appendages)" --JotaCartas (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Could it be an aviary? Widow's walk also looks interesting. (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If it was an aviary, it's not now, as it lacks any mesh to confine the birds (as is easily seen in the best resolution). Also, aviaries are usually placed where people can readily see the birds, whereas this is rather inaccessible. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Could it be a Cupola? (It seems to have the same function, but none of the examples on that page look like this one)
I think you could call the domed structure supporting it a cupola: "A cupola is a small tower or dome-like feature projecting from the top of a roof" (What is a Cupols?. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't look intended to only present an enjoyable view. It's too small, uncomfortable, unprotected from wind, no seating, etc. The stairway going up to it (if it's not a ladder) must be pretty narrow. It might be more of a lookout tower since it's at the highest possible part of the building and built for use by someone who is standing up. Regarding aviaries, I thought there was a type where the birds aren't confined, but they treat it as home, there is bird seed there, etc. Maybe it's not built for that either. Is there a way to ask whoever takes care of the building? (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This guide to buildings in Porto simply describes it (no.57) as a "beautiful viewpoint in forged iron". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
"Architectural ironwork" gets lots of Google results. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Porto City Hall, it is a commercial/office building, built in 1929. The structure in question is in wrought iron, and beyond the decorative function serves as an observation deck. Does not seem to have served as bird cage. To me, the best name so far is "belvedere" but still open to other opinions. Thank you all for your collaboration. --JotaCartas (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

What percentage of US Hispanics are either illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants?[edit]

What percentage of US Hispanics are either illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants? Do we have any data and/or estimates for this? Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"descendant of" looks pretty slippery slope, would trigger some sort of quarters of nobility debate: Does it count if you had some illegal not even hispanic great-great-grand-mother while all other ancestors are legal hispanics (just illustrative rhetorical question, do not try to answer)?
anyway, Illegal immigrant population of the United States is obviously the place to check. It states that roughly 3/4 of illegals are from hispanic countries (chiefly Mexico), that illegals are roughly 11 M, so illegal hispanics would be 8-9 M
while Demography of the United States indicates a 54 M hispanic population (not sure it include, or fully include, illegals) Gem fr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
How many of these are children or grandchildren of illegal immigrants, though? That would be a good benchmark to measure this since it would mean that at least one quarter of one's ancestry is of illegal immigrant descent.Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Then again, this would heavily depend on your definition: "my ancestor was illegal at some point in his life" is not the same as "my ancestor was illegal when he got children here". Besides, I am not sure that the sex ratio and the birth rate are the same for illegals and legals; actually pretty sure they are different. Most people are more prone to have children when in a legal, stable situation; and illegals tend to return home after some time, unless the finally get authorization to stay, so I expect a significantly lower proportion. Gem fr (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In any case that hints at a 15-20% of illegals among hispanics. Gem fr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The figure would be higher if US-born children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants were included, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, if you add a different category, you get a higher total. Census bureau looks like the place to check for more on this. Gem fr (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Futurist110 -- before WW2 (and especially before the 1910-1920 Mexican revolution and the 1924 act), there often wasn't a lot of formality over long segments of the US-Mexico border. People often drifted across without going through immigration formalities, and when U.S. authorities sporadically cracked down and deported people back to Mexico, they often didn't pay too much attention to whether they were deporting illegal immigrants or U.S. citizens... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Could the US citizens get back in later on? Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
How do you define "illegal immigration"? Immigration was handled quite differently at different points in history. It would be possible for a person to enter the United States in a legal manner in 1830, but for that same mode of entry to be illegal in 2019. Not to mention the question of whether the movement of non-Native American peoples into the Americas could be described as legal or illegal. Or even immigration. Does conquest and colonization count as immigration? --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean illegal relative to the time. In other words, if one came here illegally, or if one came here legally but overstayed one's visa and then became illegal, then this would count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha -- the status of those who were in the territories transferred from Mexico to the U.S. in 1848 was regulated by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). The territories conquered by the U.S. from Mexico were rather sparsely populated by non-Indian Mexicans at the time, except in a few local areas (mainly northern New Mexico and San Antonio, Texas). AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what made the Mexican Cession so attractive to the US; specifically, it was extremely easy for the US to flood this territory with US settlers. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Has Russia ever considered moving its capital elsewhere (excluding in times of war-related emergencies)?[edit]

Other than moving its capital to St. Petersburg and then back to Moscow, has Russia ever considered moving its capital elsewhere (excluding in times of war-related emergencies--such as during WWII, when Stalin considered moving the Russian capital to Kuybyshev (now Samara) if Moscow would have fallen to the Nazis)? If so, to where?

I seem to recall that there was some speculation that Russia could move its capital to Constantinople in the event of a Russian conquest of that city, but I'm not sure if such a move was ever actually considered by the Russian government itself.

Any thoughts on my question here? Futurist110 (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that any cities OTHER than Moscow or Saint Petersburg have been ever considered as capitals. If you look at the history of Russia, it is understandable why only those two cities were capitals. Russia, historically, first grew out of the Grand Duchy of Moscow (Muscovy), Ivan the Great was the first Grand Duke of Moscow to unite the several disparate petty states under one ruler, and his grandson Ivan the Terrible was the one who changed the title from Grand Duke of Moscow to Tsar of All of the Rus' in 1547. The title changed to Emperor of all Russia by Peter the Great in 1721; it was Peter who moved the capital to Saint Petersburg. Peter's change of title AND moving his capital was all a part of his Westernization of the Russian State and Russian Society, attempting to transform Russia from (what was then seen) as an exotic, backwards, oriental state into a modern, advanced, European state. The Capital was returned to Moscow only after the October Revolution (the short-lived Russian Provisional Government under Georgy Lvov and Alexander Kerensky was based in Saint Petersburg); the Bolsheviks did so because Saint Petersburg was the city of the Royalty and their Bourgeoisie puppets; Moscow was the People's city. The only other city you might consider is Kiev, which had been the capital of what is often considered the first Russian state, the Kievan Rus'. But calling the Kievan Rus' "Russia" is about as inaccurate as calling the Roman Empire "Italy". --Jayron32 11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Some information at Why did Russia pass up on two different chances to take Constantinople?. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, Voltaire hoped that Russia would capture Constantinople in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) and move its capital there. In Age of Anger, Pankaj Mishra writes: "Envisaging conquered Constantinople as the new capital of the Russian Empire, Voltaire asked 'your majesty for permission to come and place myself at her feet' as she sat on 'Mustapha's throne' in her new court on the Bosporus." In the event, Russia failed to take Constantinople. Mishra does not claim that Catherine herself planned to relocate the capital there (had she captured it), only that Voltaire wished it. Lfh (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Is this plastic in the water?,125.4932681,1524m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x305a71a2bdeee5fd:0xe8d3e2bd15fe3719!2sSimilan+Islands!3b1!8m2!3d8.6578626!4d97.6466734!3m4!1s0x0:0x5acd9240b89e4faa!8m2!3d3.6119098!4d125.4968382

Thanks (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to say from that angle. It could just be spume (sea foam), or even just "choppiness" caused by ocean waves. Without a closer view, it is hard to determine the cause of the whiteness in the satellite view. While notable and widely-reported examples of large, ocean-going plastic deposits are well documented, the scope of the one you showed is particularly large, and absent any other evidence, I would give equal possibility that it is some other explanation, though I would not entirely discount plastic as a possibility.--Jayron32 11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Quite obvious to me that this is NOT plastic. However, I would be very surprised if there were no plastic is this spume or algal bloom or whatever: when you zoom in, you see colored point more consistent with some plastic garbage than this white-grey (indeed the very color of spume I am familiar with). Gem fr (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If you drop in to street view, you can get pretty clear close-ups of the water; I'm not really seeing much in the way of plastic - and certainly not to the extent suggested by the overhead view. The pictures were not taken at the same time, of course. Matt Deres (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
See also sunglint. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Identify these items[edit]

Is anyone able to identify any of the items on the wall here.,126.6187385,3a,75y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNydgoctjdCUmg4zTLHunn_zK2PBmTjQUf6BeF4!2e10!3e12!!7i4000!8i3000!4m5!3m4!1s0x5e438015aa1d3e27:0xd2999381a7b3543!8m2!3d45.7747447!4d126.6187942

Thanks (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to the documents pinned in the display cases? It's going to be hard to identify them without being able to see the writing (which is in Chinese, to boot). The machine displayed is an early phonograph, but I don't know the model. Matt Deres (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


I am posting here to request that someone should write an article by that name. There are many Lucies here but the one I am interested in is not mentioned in Wikipedia as far as I know. The book I am reading now "Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict 1941-45" mentions an "entity" ?? called Lucy that supplied Stalin with a very accurate information about the German intentions and plans during the dark days of WWII. This person or a group seemed to have a direct access to the most inner circles of the German General staff. I understand the Russians somehow had no idea about the identity of this source and the book says that Lucy's identity has never been established, however after a certain period of mistrust, the Russian military planners, Stalin, Zhukov, made their moves according to the Lucy's instructions. I wonder if there is more information somewhere and it can be made a subject of a new article in Wikipedia. Thanks AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Rudolf Roessler, a German spy, apparently had the codename "Lucy". There's something about him here, if you read German. Fut.Perf. 17:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is a totally new page. Very interesting. (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi AboutFace 22, we do have an article! Find it at Lucy spy ring. (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you too. It is a fascinating episode of history. AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added "Lucy spy ring" to the "See also" section of our Lucy disambiguation page. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 24[edit]