Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 29

Clemenceau's hat

Clemenceau and hat

What kind of hat is Georges Clemenceau wearing here? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

See https://lionheartautographs.com/autographs/original-portrait-of-clemenceau-publisher-of-zolas-jaccuse/ - it's actually a custom make. Nanonic (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

According to that article, the designer (one Mlle. Jeanne Taty), based it on the French Army calot or forage cap; an example is shown here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Appointing an Australian premier

With the replacement of Jacinta Allan by Ben Carroll as Premier of Victoria, I'm left wondering — what's involved in the appointment of a new premier, whether here in Victoria or elsewhere? Let's imagine a situation like this one, where there's no question of which party/coalition has a majority, and no question who leads that party/coalition; I'm just wondering about the formalities. Does the governor just sign some paperwork, or is there a formal kissing hands-type ceremony, or is it somewhere in between? I didn't find anything online, but ChatGPT told me that the new premier must visit Government House, formally have an audience with the governor, take an oath of office, etc., but the whole situation is much less elaborate than a royal audience. But then, yesterday ChatGPT told me that bus services to Marysville didn't exist, so I know I can't trust it. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT got those formalities right. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@JackofOz: as a fellow Aussie, any insights on this? ~2026-42237-99 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment on "much less elaborate than a royal audience": My impression - that's the best I can do, given that I've never been summoned to one - is that royal audiences are not elaborate at all. You turn up at the palace or wherever, get ushered in to the royal presence, shake hands, sit down, accept tea if offered, answer questions, then leave at the appropriate time.

Visiting a state governor would be virtually identical to this. In the case of a new premier, there's an oath to be administered by the governor, and spoken and signed by the new premier. That's it. Well, the Governor may firstly ask the person whether they'd be willing to accept the role of premier - but that's nearly always a foregone conclusion in these circumstances. That piece of paper, and the official notice about the visit in the newspapers, constitute the complete official record of the occasion. There may be a photographer present for the oath swearing bit, but whether that video is the property of Government House or some private organisation like a TV station, I could not say.

We tend to expect some grand announcement of the new premier - but that's the media's job. As far as Government House is concerned, the baton has been handed on quietly without any fuss, and the governance of the state keeps calm and carries on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The elaborate part of the Buckingham Palace operation seems to be ushering the previous incumbent out of the back door, while the new boy or girl is welcomed at the front, without the twain meeting. Presumably this is so that there is a minimal time when the country lacks governance. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

But this would depend on the reason for the previous one leaving office. I get the impression that the 2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK) was not a contest to overthrow Tony Blair (which would have been similar to what we had here last week) but a contest to replace him after he decided that he wanted to leave office, and that Blair was happy to have Brown succeed him, so I suppose it wouldn't have been uncomfortable for them to meet. Nyttend (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

But I think the protocol still applies. Messers Starmer and Burnham seem to be on speaking terms, but one was going out the back before t'other went in the front. Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The departing PM doesn't have to wait upon the monarch. When Asquith replaced Campbell Bannerman, Asquith had to go to Biarritz, but CB stayed at home in Number 10, and indeed remained there until his death. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, my understanding is that while the monarch has the incoming PM visit them to be formally invited to create a government, the outgoing individual doesn't need any such courtesy. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

July 30

Was Bruno Bettelheim really Bruno Bettelheim? asking for reports on speculation, not asking for

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

speculation. Could the actual Bruno Bettelheim have been murdered in Buchenwald and then someone stole his identity and emigrated to the United States? It would fit the character traits of the man we know as Bettelheim. Richard Pollak, among others, obviously didn't trust Bettelheim, or at least the man he knew as Bettelheim, and since he thought that man was such a liar, maybe he had private speculations in his notes and conversations that Bettelheim wasn't really him. Rich (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Who put this notion in your head? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Myself Rich (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

So you're allowed to speculate, but we aren't? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, but I know that I am not allowed to ask for speculation.Rich (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually it might have been my ekxperience as a 5 year old in Princeton NJ, early 1960s when I was being dosed with Haldol(I didn't know until 45 years later. I alwayys wondered what was wrong with me, and the answer apparently was that doctors were recklessly and/or greedily making me very messed up). Anyway, having learned about it I've often puzzled over it since then because it didn't fit my comforting stereotype of kindly Jewish doctors from Europe. A few years ago it did ocur to me that they might have been Nazi doctors fleeing Germany under a cover of Jewish names and occupations, a cover few would suspect, since their actions do fit my stereotype of nazi doctors. But yesterday, I was reading about Bruno Bettelheim's alleged plagiarism and so I thought, why not so.e rascal fleeing Germany BEFORE the war with a Jewish name. Rich (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Note, I recommend hatting this thread as it is going nowhere fast. Rich, Frank Abagnale was a real person. If you haven't seen it, check out Catch Me If You Can. It's a fun film. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's let it go where it goes, if anywhere, before hatting it. Rich (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If the 'Bettelheim' who arrived in New York in 1939, rejoining Bettelheim's previously emigrated wife Gina, was an imposter who replaced the 'real Bettelheim' in Buchenwald in 1938–9, why didn't Gina, married to Bettelheim from 1930, notice and/or say something? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If he wasn't really Bettelheim, she didn't tell on him, but they didn't pretend any further relationship. Rich (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem terribly likely on the face of it. What would the supposed impostor stand to gain from such a scheme? He wouldn't be able to use any of Bettelheim's connections without risking giving himself away, so why not just travel under his own name? One could, I suppose, imagine a Nazi trying to pass himself off as a concentration camp survivor in 1945, but not in 1939.

And if your only evidence is the man's negative personality traits, that doesn't mean he has to be a Nazi in disguise. He could just be a Jewish guy with the same traits. People are just people. Chuntuk (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

August 1

Decelerating history

Is there an idea or well known examples of a historical topic where the interesting events are near the beginning, and then it's mostly just stuff playing out routinely? As an extreme example, The First Three Minutes is about the early history of the universe, from the big bang til 3 minutes later. After that, stuff was roughly like it is now. Some fiction writers have dated the Star Wars saga (a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away) to around 5 billion years ago, when the universe was around 2/3 of its present age. I'm specifically looking for the idea that stuff gets less important or interesting as time passes. Obviously that will be false for a lot of topics, like the history of mathematics goes back 1000s of years but most of the good parts are in the past century. Thanks. ~2026-42295-00 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You're not going to like this answer, but I suspect the entire idea you propose is flawed and culture bound. I say this because when you study history closely, things are always interesting, even when we say they are not. There was even a book about this that came out last year but I can't remember the name. Anyway, I'm instead taken with the edge of chaos. The most interesting events don't necessarily happen at the beginning. They happen whenever a system is balanced between rigid order and complete disorder. This could be why you get periods of stability and upheaval all the time. This doesn't need to happen at the so-called "beginning". And maybe there isn't really a beginning in the first place; as a matter of perspective, that's just a story we like to tell ourselves to make things make sense. From this point of view, forget about beginnings and endings. There is no unique beginning, there are many, endlessly occurring. Whenever order becomes disordered the cycle begins again and again. You can see this happening now around you. Things are stable at first, then they tend to get rigid, followed by a crisis of some kind. Then you get innovation and the cycle repeats itself. And don't forget about the Copernican principle: don't assume your location in space or time is special. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The present time is typically chaotic or worse. The past is in the past. I think this quote is attributed to Lincoln: "The quiet past is inadequate to the stormy present." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

And attributed rightly, though more fully "The dogmas of the quiet past...". --Antiquary (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to have happened whenever you see a history book talking about a revolution at a particular time?

Anyway, in the understanding of the world by humans, I think of the early 20th century this way. Ever since the understanding of quantum mechanics reached a critical point in the 1920s, nothing has changed the worldview as much on a fundamental level (even though it took decades to understand some consequences of the formalism, like Bell's theorem only in 1964). Icek~enwiki (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Official name

Hello, I wanted to ask what the official name of the Mayan underground city was ? I didn't find it. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing you found this report referenced in our article Maya cave sites.

For interest, there is another slightly more detailed report on the same discovery Here. Such sites were portals to the Mayan underworld Xibalba, a name which has been applied to part of a different cave system, the Chiquibul Cave System.

The underground complex in question is near a village called called Tzibichen or Tahtzibichen, itself near the city of Mérida, Yucatán (we have a further article on the city, Timeline of Mérida, Yucatán), but I have not been able to find an official name for it, despite searching on the name of the lead archaeologist Guillermo de Anda (aka Guillermo de Anda Alanis).

A possible avenue of enquiry might be to contact a museum, university or research institution in Mérida (see its article, several mentioned there have their own articles). Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you!--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Vyacheslav84, do you have reason to believe that there was an official name for it? The idea of official names for cities (like concepts such as municipal boundaries, incorporation, etc) seems to me to be a modern thing, and I'll just guess that all references to the city in Mayan writing would have been what we call a common name, since they wouldn't have had any reason to call it one thing and officially name it something else. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, at least some kind of name.--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

We might take any name used by archaeologists to refer to this site (which wasn't exactly a 'city' in modern terms) as its current 'official' name – they must have some term for it.

In its Acknowledgements, this book, Exploring Maya Ritual Caves by Stanislav Chládek, AltaMira Press 2011 (ISBN 987-0-7591-1987-1 cloth, 987-0-7591-1989-5 electronic) refers to "the newly discovered Tzibichen Caves in Yucatán". Further text unviewable through Google may have a different or more academic name for the site, as might any scholarly papers that the book references, but which I have not been able to find by online searching. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you!--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

copyright of the us declaration of independence

What was the copyright recognition of the US Declaration of Indepencence in England when it was first created? Would it have been in the public domain from the outset? How long was it copyrighted under US law? 781h (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

At the time, importing foreign works into Great Britain was prohibited. More importantly, copyright was only granted to printed books.  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The news and text of the Declaration of Independence reached England by mid-August 1776. In the newly United States, the text had been printed in over 30 newspapers in the span of a month. In Great Britain and Ireland, the Declaration was printed in still more newspapers, from London to Dublin, from Edinburgh to Canterbury. The majority of British newspaper printings of the Declaration of Independence look similar to the American printings. But some censored the text, even going so far as to change words or only excerpt certain portions.

Unsullied by Falsehood: The Present ---- of G---- B------ from the Harvard Declaration Resources Project. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You may be interested in this handwritten copy of the Declaration that was copied by Vice‑Admiral Molyneux Shuldham and sent off to London on 10 July 1776.

And this copy of the Declaration which was presented in the House of Lords at Westminster on 20 January 1778.

Also this copy, one of only eleven known examples of the "Exeter Broadside" which was recently discovered in the British National Archives, having been captured from an American brig by HMS Raisonnable and brought to Plymouth (the one in England) in January 1777. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Assuming the founding fathers wanted this to be widely distributed, wouldn't copyrighting it have been counterproductive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Under the current rules as they apply in most of the world, copyright exists automatically as soon as a work is recorded on some physical medium (including as bits in a file). An author who does not want this needs to declare that the work is released in the public domain. Perhaps the questioner did not know that in the 18th century being entitled to copyright protection required registration.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You might want to look into whether a copyright notice were required in English-and-Welsh law at the time. Lambiam has an interesting point, although that would be a non-copyright restriction. Nyttend (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why was Loyd "Budget"?

Why was Charles Loyd nicknamed "Budget"? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Dubious but - "Second to None - The Coldstream Guards 1650-2000" pg 46 "So called because he joined the regiment in 1910, the year of Lloyd George's Budget. Nanonic (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nanonic: Thanks - sounds reasonable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2

Morality of non-combatants in a war of aggression

Have there been any answers by philosophers and theologians to the issue of morality of some non-combatants helping the offending side in a war of aggression (such as medics in the Wehrmacht)? The crux is apparently saving a human life vs. facilitating a return of any such soldier to kill the defending side and/or inflict injuries that are treated by medics of that defending side, creating a vicious circle where Hippocratic Oath or Declaration of Geneva become controversial. A particular aspect of it is that a medic of a defending side may treat a person who suffered because of an enemy soldier, brought back to the frontline by enemy's medic. The same generally applies to the offending side's firefighters, workers of military factories, priests, engineers, etc. Brandmeister ^talk 21:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A place to start might be our Conscientious objector article. In Britain, some of those refused combat roles but were willing to serve in auxilliary roles such as the Friends' Ambulance Unit, while others eschewed anything war related. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Our article Killing baby Hitler suggests you may want to consider deontological, consequentialist, and utilitarian approaches to your question. Basically, you pays your money and you takes your choice. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There can be no doubt both philosophers and theologians have pondered and/or pontificated on the issue. There can be little doubt that, in either category, they have reached mutually contradictory conclusions. Some may even have reached self-contradictory conclusions. Any such conclusions are only answers to those who hear what they are open to hearing.

In any case, under Article 12 of the Geneva Conventions, wounded combattants in the field must be treated humanely and cared for by the belligerent party in whose power they are, also if they are enemy combattants. Which side they are on may not be used to discriminate in their care.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

August 3

1764 RSA art awards

We read:

April 16th, 1764.—Wednesday Evening last the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, &c, adjudged the first Premium of fifty Guineas, for the best Landscape, to Mr. Barratt, a celebrated painter from Dublin; the second of twenty-five, to Mr. Bond of Birmingham; and the third of fifteen to Mr. Stewart, of London.

Who were the three artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

George Barret Sr. was a celebrated painter from Dublin, Daniel Bond was from Birmingham. DuncanHill (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Quick work, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think Charles Stewart was Charles Steuart, see also here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

August 4

AD or BC?

The article about Glaucias of Athens contradicts itself. It says that he "appears to have lived in the 1st century BC", but one of the categories labels him as a 1st-century Athenian. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

 Fixed.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

He could of course have lived in both, a lot of people did. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Unlikely in this case, I would say. A translation of Plutarch's Symposiacs can be found here. These relate conversations at symposia, at some of which both Plutarch and Glaucias were present. Plutarch's birth is given as "before 50 CE", and apparently he was in Athens as a student in 66/67. So Glaucias would have been very very old when he attended those symposia if he had been born BC. I wonder whether the title "Glaucias of Athens" can be justified. Shouldn't the article be renamed "Glaucias (Athens)", "Glaucias (orator)" or something like that? --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

'X of Y' is a common formulation for persons of that era and milieu, commonly used (in the appropriate language) at the time; I would say it is the most likely name (other than the bare name X) that people would search on, and the most common form of name that students of the period will actually have read, so it is the most useful form of title, having some disambiguation built in. {The poster formerly known as 878.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we even know that Glaucias is from Athens. In § 635a, Plutarch writes "In Eleusis, after the solemn celebration of the sacred mysteries, Glaucias the orator entertained us at a feast". Our source therefore seems to argue in favour of "Glaucias of Eleusis", but we can't be sure of that either (did he entertain them at home or did he just pay the bill?). I think the "of" form needs has a ring of officiality that needs to be supported directly by a source, otherwise the usual wikipedia convention of parentheses (as in Glaucias (physician, 3rd century BC)) seems more appropriate. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Glaucias is first called "orator" (Γλαυκίας δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ) in § 628d, at the symposion at Serapion’s in Athens. Note that Plutarch identifies one Xenocles in § 635a explicitly as "Xenocles of Delphi", whereas Glaucias is again identified as "the orator". More likely (IMO), Plutarch and Glaucias-the-orator were part of a group of Athenians that also included Lamprias, who had traveled to Eleusis to attend the popular Eleusinian Mysteries.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

August 8

Witnesses to deeds

Were witnesses to deeds typically paid in England (and Canada and Ireland) in the 18th and 19th centuries? Serving as a witness seems to have taken some time, since the witness would have to be present at the signing and also swear to their witnessing at the courthouse or registrar’s office. —Amble (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

While I defer to anyone with earlier information, my experience in mid-20th century England is that witnesses to signings in civil matters would not normally have to attend a courthouse or registrar's office except at civil weddings. Deed transfer documents often required signatures of two witnesses who sign each with their name, their address, date and possibly other identifying details, but not necessarily at a specific location (an exception is where a Notary Public requires to see the act of signing). While a witness may have received a payment or promise for their signature it would be unwise to record any such remuneration because it would expose the witness's motivation and thereby the deed's validity to suspicion later. ~2026-39925-22 (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Your experience gives helpful context. Some deeds I have seen do say that the witnesses personally appeared before the registrar, so I took that to be standard. I’ll pay more attention to which ones actually said so. —Amble (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It is a trope of early twentieth century detective fiction that household servants are called upon to witness the legal documents of their employers. For example, this forms a significant plot point in Sayers' Unnatural Death and in Christie's Why Didn't They Ask Evans?. In neither case do they have to go to a courthouse (and it would have spoiled the villain's plot had they had to do so). Chuntuk (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but typically (almost invariably) these are wills, which do not need to be registered (itself another common propellant for plots in fiction). In English law, very few types of document need to be registered on signing, other than those relating to companies and their shares, which are posted to the registrar at Companies House (since 1844), and I think always have been, and documents of various sorts for sending to some branch of government, such as passport applications (which need witnesses to certify the photos, but are all handled by post). Witnesses are required for marriage certificates - not sure about death certificates. In a long life with various types of business activity, the only times I have had to get things registered in person, for UK purposes, were I think on my marriage and the births of my children. If you are dealing with documents required by other countries that all changes. English towns don't actually have "courthouses", they have magistrate's courts, and a registrar's office in the town hall or council offices - see Register office (United Kingdom). HM Land Registry (est 1862) does not require personal visits. Unlike some other countries, the police have managed to keep clear of involvement in all that sort of thing. So being a witness in England was normally a matter of moments, and payment not expected, although I think possible. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

August 9

Technique for displaying horses for sale or show

L.B. (1877), Recollections of New Street, Birmingham, in the Year 1817, OCLC 1166350254, Wikidata Q140944645 tells us:

Near this spot the Horse Market was held; not the Horse Fair, which was then, as now, held in the place still bearing its name. The footpath here was raised about a foot above the level of the road, so that the horse's fore feet might rest upon it, and thus show the animals to advantage, as is still done in the Horse Fair.

Do any artworks or early photographs demonstrating this technique exist? Do we have it documented on Wikipedia? Was it common, or peculiar to the Birmingham area? Is it still used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This photo of the Wolverhamton horse fair has the spectators standing on a raised footpath, rather than the horses. Nothing else I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Top row of Zygalski sheets

On our Zygalski sheets article, there is this sample sheet, which I am thinking of vectorising.

Why do the top two squares appear to have a row above "a"?

The source of the diagram is here. Marnanel (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me to be an error in the attempt to reproduce such a sheet on a typewriter. Rather than being in a separate row, the o's in the columns b, e and f are supposed to be in row a, just as in the bottom two squares, but got somehow vertically somewhat misaligned. Another irregularity is that row z is missing from the bottom two squares.

This may be a photograph of a set of four real Zygalski sheets, displayed in the Enigma Cipher Centre in Poznan. All rows are aligned well (inasmuch as they are visible), and row z is present in each quadrant of each sheet.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Row z missing isn't a mistake - you can see that column z is also missing from the right-hand side. When these sheets are used, you're effectively selecting a 26x26 section of it (which you line up with other sheets and shine light through), representing the original 26x26 grid in the top left corner shifted by 0-25 positions on either axis. There's no need for the 52nd row and column because shifting by 26 positions would be the same as shifting by 0. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Katharinenkirche, Nuremberg

How do we know that Katharinenkirche, Nuremberg is the setting for the opening scene of Meistersinger? The article asserts this without any citation, except to a blog, and the blog doesn't explain why, unless I overlooked something. Does Wagner specify that it's set here? Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

According to our article Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg Act 1, Scene 1, opens in the "Interior of Katharinenkirche (St. Catherine's Church) in Nuremberg, Saint John's Eve or Midsummer's Eve, June 23". DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

And here is a libretto with parallel German and English texts. DuncanHill (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So the answer to the question is, "Yes, Wagner's libretto does specify this."  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

August 10

The actual meaning of a "safe harbor"

(This is not a request for legal advice) The Safe harbor (law) article brings up an abstract reckless driving law as an example of a safe and unsafe harbor. But isn't a speed limit only part of what commonly qualifies "recklessness"? It seems to even be the most objective one. You can actually measure velocity! The way I understood the term was exactly the way the lead put it, a provision of a statute or a regulation that specifies that certain conduct will be deemed not to violate a given rule. While technically checking out, that example doesn't register as particularly useful to me...

Is a safe harbor about ranges of acceptable values, where if it's acceptable it's safe and if it's not it's unsafe? Is a safe harbor about emergency vehicles being able to drive into a park when something happens? Is it both? (If so, what is even the point of this term and why does it seem to have a narrower meaning as a reasonable exception?) — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 05:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I've most often encountered the term in reference to safe harbor 401(k) plans. Basically, "safe harbor" plans -- those with certain matching and employer contribution structures -- are exempted from the penalties for having too great a disparity in contribution rates between employees with high compensation and other employees.

IANAL, but as far as I can tell, it just refers to any provision of a law that indicates that under X circumstances (you choose a plan with structure Y; the pollution happened before you bought the house; you're just a "dumb pipe" transmitting the copyright-violating data, not hosting it; you ran afoul of the anti-prostitution laws because you're a kid and someone forced you to, not of your own adult volition; etc) you're in compliance with law Z even if something happened that otherwise would be considered a violation. -- Avocado (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

as far as I can tell, it just refers to any provision of a law that indicates that under X circumstances [...] you're in compliance with law Z even if something happened that otherwise would be considered a violation.

That does seem fair, but the way I see that speed limit example is that it just describes the law Z and its base circumstances (not the exemption part!). Otherwise, the term would just refer to the inverse of the conditions that get you in violation of a law. Am I correct to think that that example is just flawed and should instead, for example, bring up how emergency vehicles can break the speed limit in certain circumstances? — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 10:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The metaphor is that of a ship being hit by a storm; in what may be a devastating event, the ship is safe if it has managed to reach a safe harbour.

What corresponds to the "storm" may vary with the context in which the term is used for some provision. Being hit by a lawsuit is one; incurring severe penalties is another. In either case, a safe-harbour provision offers protection from such troubles.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Our Safe harbor (law) article really needs some work. The whole discussion of reckless driving is a made-up example that does not reflect anything in the real world. Also, “unsafe harbor” is not a standard legal term.

There are a number of safe harbors in U.S. securities law. For example, section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that the key requirements of the statute do not apply to transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering. Well, what’s a public offering? That turns out to be a highly abstract concept that can be difficult to apply to the vast range of transactions that may be used. In practice, issuers usually rely on any of several safe harbors promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. John M Baker (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

This is interesting. From searching online I hadn't seen many sources say "unsafe harbor" other than in quotation marks or in passing.

I see you do have a law degree, so here's a question: is this example from the paper I referenced better in that regard?

The rule-writer provides a general principle that is accessible, albeit subjective, along the lines of “no vehicles are permitted in the park unless reasonably required under the circumstances.” […] At the same time the rule-writer can identify the specific situations expected to arise most frequently, and address them with specifically tailored, objective safe-harbor (or unsafe-harbor) rules. Those objective rules can be written to avoid at least the most foreseeable hard cases associated with objective guidelines (“emergency vehicles on official business are permitted in the park”), and anything falling outside safe-harbor contours can be left to be captured by the standard.

I'm thinking that if that article is to have an abstract illustrative example, this one seems good to reference. — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 15:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Byngo Bango Bungo

According to our article Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy "At Eton Byng first received the nickname "Bungo"—to distinguish him from his elder brothers "Byngo" and "Bango"". It appears from our article on his father George Byng, 2nd Earl of Strafford that Bungo had three half and three whole older brothers. So, which ones were Byngo and Bango, and what were the others nicknamed? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Unlikely to have been the half brothers. The youngest of them was 27 years older than Julian. It seems unlikely that anyone at Eton with him would remember the half brothers' nicknames or care if they clashed with Julian's. Chuntuk (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Manchuria timeline

Hi all, a bit confused so hoping someone could help me out. I'm working on the Tōru Takemitsu for FAR. RS says that he was born in Tokyo on 8 October 1930, and that by November 1930 (under a month), he had moved to Dalian, where his father was a government official. Dalian is in China, more specifically Manchuria.

My question is: how was his father in the government controlling Dalian in November 1930, when the invasion was not until a year later (September 1931: Japanese invasion of Manchuria) and the puppet state not founded a year after that (1932: Manchukuo)? Aza24 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Aza24: Port Arthur/Dairen/Dalien was ruled by Japan from 1905, after being captured from Russia. See Treaty of Portsmouth and Kwantung Leased Territory. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Japan gained control of the Liaodong Peninsula, including Dalian and Port Arthur, via the Treaty of Portsmouth. This area became known as the Kwantung Leased Territory. Unlike the rest of Manchuria, which remained under Chinese sovereignty (albeit with significant Japanese influence and railway interests) until the 1931 invasion, Dalian was legally leased to and governed directly by Japan starting in 1905. In short, Dalian was not "invaded" in 1931; it had been an established Japanese colonial enclave for decades before the rest of Manchuria was seized to create the puppet state of Manchukuo. ~2026-41824-87 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite helpful, thank you both! Aza24 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)