Humanities desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 25[edit]

Help identifying WWII uniform patch[edit]

I was hoping someone could help identify these U.S. Army uniform items. A quick search on my own found nothing useful. The patch is a bell shape with an silver eagle on a blue background with red lines. The other shoulder had a patch (black hourglass on a red circle) for the 7th U.S. Infantry. The blue label pin seems to have a silver cross? on top, a wavy silver bar in middle and a silver outline of a pentagon on the bottom. Rmhermen (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see it in Armies. Corps. Divisions, and Separate Brigades by John B. Wilson. Try reposting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history where there are experts who are happy to help. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bell-shaped patch was worn by the Korean Military Advisory Group. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense. Rmhermen (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the blue-and white lapel pin with cross and pentagon: I think I've google-image-searched just about every relevant (and far-fetched) search term combo I could come up with, finding not a sausage. It's annoying me now, and I've asked for help at the WP Military History Project. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this comes up on a day when I need to get to sleep cause I have work this evening :) Anyway...Its a pity more of the uniform isn't shown, I'd have a better idea if the award was inherited or specific to a time period. A preliminary look at the above information tells us the aforementioned Korean Army group came under the US Army's 8th Army after hostilities erupted on the peninsula, which suggests that the pin could be a unit acting with or on behalf of the 8th during the offensive. The closest I was able to do was the patch for the 17th Infantry Regiment (United States), although I can tell that's not it. Smart money says if we dig into the article Korean War order of battle we'd find the unit, but I couldn't tell you how long that would take. A better, more detailed list can be found here, but again, who knows how long it'd take to actually find the pin. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, TomStar81! With that help I found two pictures of this distinctive insignia (DI). Here (WorthPoint) and here (Flying Tiger Antiques). Both sites describe it as belonging to the 17th Infantry Regiment, manufactured by N.S. Meyer Hallmark, from the 1950s. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

inspirations by American visual art[edit]

I saw these videos [1] and [2] on YouTube. The former features Mary Kom unveiling a version of Charging Bull and of Fearless Girl. The latter features two different versions of a South African Fearless Girl. Who sculpted the statues in the former?2604:2000:1281:4B3:806F:57D6:B8B1:5437 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related question also at the Entertainment desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the late 1920s A- and B-class British destroyers built?[edit]

See the title. Thanks in advance, User:Thatone~~weird~~wikier | Conversations and Contributions 15:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean that because there were a lot of First World War destroyers left over, why build any new ones? A few points:

1) If you want to maintain a large fleet (the Royal Navy had 144 destroyers in 1930),[3] then you can't let them all reach the end of their life at once, so replacements are needed at regular intervals.

2) Wartime experience had shown that the destroyer needed to be a multi-role vessel, capable not only of torpedo attack but also anti-submarine warfare and mine clearance, which required a larger vessel. [4]

3) Because Germany was unlikely to be a competitor anytime soon because the Versailles Treaty had virtually disarmed their navy, it was likely that any future conflict might be further away, possibly with Japan. The war had shown the need for capital ships to have a destroyer escort, therefore longer range destroyers were required, again needing a larger hull.

4) The Japanese, having had the number of their capital ships and cruisers restricted by the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, decided "to build large numbers of other types of ships not restricted by the treaty, with the most powerful weaponry possible" resulting in the Fubuki-class destroyers. These were 1,750 tons compared to 1,200 tons of the latest British V and W-class destroyers. The 1930 London Naval Treaty put a temporary stop to this arms race by restricting the total tonnage of each destroyer fleet. [5]

Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth answer! User:Thatone~~weird~~wikier | Conversations and Contributions 20:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal fallacies[edit]

Our article Red herring says: ″As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies." I'm a newbie to informal logic and seem not to be able to identify any other group of fallacies within this 'broad' class that is not red herrings. Can anybody help, ideally with a source? Thanks, --Stilfehler (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Relevance fallacies. Section 3.2 of the book A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley is dedicated to fallacies of relevance. --Lambiam 23:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, thank you! --Stilfehler (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is any way of wikilinking "relevance fallacies"? The lead at Category:Relevance fallacies points to Irrelevant conclusion, but that says that "It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies". Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of fallacies#Relevance fallacies. Although the organization of that section is IMO a bit confusing, it is a plausible new redirect target for Relevance fallacy. The redirect ought to be labelled {{R with possibilities}}. Other terms that should likewise be redirected or re-redirected are Relevance fallacies, Fallacy of relevance and Fallacies of relevance. --Lambiam 19:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]