Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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 3[edit]

Haakon, Olav, and who?[edit]

Who is with King Haakon VII and Crown Prince Olav in this picture? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Norwegian wiki and google translate, Hans Reidar Holtermann? See the gallery section of the Norwegian wiki page. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, that's him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The weapon is a Sten (a Mark III, I believe) if you were wondering, dating the image to 1943 or later. Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the longest time taken to solve a "cold case" for an unsolved murder or for any unsolved crime?[edit]

There has been recent news of the Golden State Killer case ... he committed his crimes in the 1970's ... and got arrested rather recently. This got me thinking. Is there any sort of "record" for the longest unsolved murder (that finally became solved)? And, how about the same question, for a crime in general (not limited to murder)? Does Wikipedia have any sort of article? I guess what I am asking is: what is the oldest/longest "cold case" that was finally cracked, both for murder and for crime in general? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "oldest solved cold case", several things came up. Murder of Maria Ridulph was thought to be the oldest solved case, except the guy was wrongfully convicted. A Seattle case is being claimed as the oldest now, at 52 years.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that there are a lot of cases listed here: cold case. But, the charts are somewhat hard to read (i.e., the mathematical calculations for "length of time that the case remained cold" are not that readily apparent). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, as in they figured out who did it, or solved, as in they figured out who did it AND arrested the who? I don't see it as implausible that cases from generations ago could be solved by accident, e.g. a researcher finds that someone confessed to his diary what he never confessed to anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. And good points. But, I believe that if "they" figured out "who did the crime" ... it is no longer a cold case / unsolved case (regardless of an arrest, conviction, etc.) ... right? Also, if we are looking for "record lengths of time" ... my guess is that in these very old cases (e.g., 50+ years old), the suspect is no longer alive. The situation you describe (about the diary confession) is not implausible ... but has that ever happened? Did such an occurrence "make the news"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Kind Hearts and Coronets for a fictional case of someone who was undone solely on the basis of his own diary/autobiography. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only skimmed it but does the source claim it's the oldest cold case to be solved? AFAICT, it only claims it's the oldest cold case to be solved via genealogy DNA databases. Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I agree. That case is the oldest "cold case" that was cracked by the use of genealogy DNA databases. Not (necessarily) the oldest (subsequently-solved) "cold case", in general (i.e., solved by other methods). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel culture[edit]

George Will used the term here. The article has become a redirect to Online shaming, which is not what Will was talking about. Gobonobo, who I asked for an opinion because of an apparent interest in Will's defintion of the topic, suggested part of the Call-out culture article. Bacondrum, who changed Cancel culture to a redirect, seemed to disagree that there was a second definition of the word that would justify a disambiguation page, but the definition doesn't fit under Online shaming. Here and here are sources that at least show there is a second definition.

I admit my adding 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning to a Cancel culture disambiguation page wasn't the best idea but I was hoping someone could come up with a better article to put there. Bacondrum properly restored the redirect because there wasn't a justification for what I did.

You can see our discussions here and here.

What is the proper action for making sure both definitions are covered?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on the article talk page. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep being a road block on this Vchimpanzee, but neither of those sources are reliable ( I should have addressed this when they were first presented). One is an opinionated primary source, the other is a christian conservative conspiracy-pseudoscience source owned by televangelist Pat Robertson who has been known to make controversial and false claims throughout his long television career. Faithwire is the antithesis of a reliable source. It wont just be me who challenges those sources, they are not reliable for anything other than George Will's opinion, and I can't see why his opinion would be due. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum I did notice that one of the sources was opinion, but I thought it worked for this purpose. And Will's opinion isn't the issue here. I feel he is just referring to what others have said. I see no evidence such as "I would like to use this term" or "I am proposing the use of this term" that he made it up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee hey mate, if you look at the top of the piece you will see this caption "Opinion by George F. Will Columnist" It's an opinion piece, as per WP:NEWSORG guidelines "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact...and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy" So, there's two issues, one: if his opinion is to be published here it must be correctly attributed and two: is his opinion due? As to being due, I'd say that's a firm no, in my opinion - I can't see how Will would be seen as any kind of authority on the subject. You'll need to find a reliable secondary source. Also, this is the appropriate talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Online_shaming Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I never said Will's opinion was important. I have made the statement from the beginning that the man is using a term others have used. The fact that he's using it is evidence of its use but not something we can use as a source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romano, Aja (30 December 2019). "Why we can't stop fighting about cancel culture". Vox. defines 'cancel culture' and distinguishes from 'call-out culture'. fiveby(zero) 01:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for possibly misusing the ref desk, but when there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, there is no article talk page either. What do we do with the concept of erasing history, since that is the larger topic which is partly covered by 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning? If someone will give me a place to go with this, I can drop the discussion here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is moving far into the distasteful realm of recentism populated by opinion columnists and others of their unsavory ilk. Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials has an "Academic commentary" section, and the talk page of List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests might be appropriate for discussion. fiveby(zero) 17:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveby what about this is recentism? The use of the term I want to see is based on what has been happening at least since 2015, when another incident led to the same protests about statues and Confederate flags we are seeing now, only not on the scale since George Floyd. And probably longer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any academic sources and would have expected to find any worth mentioning in "Cancel Culture Is Chaotic Good". Please, this is the place to ask for references, there are plenty of talk pages where other issues can be discussed. fiveby(zero) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveby I just came here because there was not a talk page that I knew of.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cancel culture" is a weaponized term. I think it's appropriate the way Wikipedia handles it right now. "To cancel" or "cancellation" is less loaded. I don't think either requires a Wikipedia article. Temerarius (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temerarius I never said it did. It just needs each of its definitions described in a sentence or two in the appropriate article. And while this isn't technically the use of a disambiguation page, each of those definitions should be mentioned there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find throwaway buzzwords like "weaponised" and "cancelled" tedious in the extreme, but that's just my opinion. Seriously though, "It just needs each of its definitions described in a sentence or two in the appropriate article" nothing needs to be done at all, provide reliable sources and improve the article, failing that there's nothing that needs doing..."And while this isn't technically the use of a disambiguation page" that is right, it isn't the correct use for a disambiguation page at all, and "each of those definitions should be mentioned there" no they absolutely should not, with or without a reliable secondary source - disambiguation pages are for...disambiguation, who would have guessed!! This is getting into WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED territory. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about competence. This is about Wikipedia saying X is true when Y is true but Y has no secondary sources to prove it. I find that very frustrating and I often add information that I know is true and... surprise! ... no one reverts it. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it (no one reports on it in a reliable source) it still makes a sound. In the other cases I'm not going to just sit there while Wikipedia tells us something that isn't true. I'm not sure what the solution is for "cancel culture" but calling it a type of "online shaming" and saying that's the final story isn't the answer. Improve "the article"? You're improving the wrong article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it (no one reports on it in a reliable source) it still makes a sound." Many of our deleted articles probably did contain true information. But Wikipedia:Notability puts limits to what we can cover in article space: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked for a separate article. Just a sentence or two in whatever is the appropriate article, and an entry on a disambiguation page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patterns of history[edit]

Why is it that history has a tendency to repeat itself, in the context of social and political history? And do we make the same mistakes every time? Is this even the right way to think about it? Clover345 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because "it is the doom of men that they forget." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are schools of thought which say that mistakes are what makes us human and we have always improved but never reach perfection. Which is why I ask do we actually make the same mistakes? Clover345 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very general question and is sure to inspire debate. I recall someone repeating the old "doomed to repeat history" statement, and saying, "I'll keep that in mind if I ever think about invading Poland." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it’s a philosophical question with no easy answer. Like all philosophical questions. Clover345 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense, no two events are the same. But there are degrees of similarity (and difference) where the outcomes may reasonably be expected to be similar (or different). --Khajidha (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And those similarities are amplified by Apophenia, the human tendency to find patterns in everything. We have a cognitive bias to see history as repeating itself even though it may not actually do so. More specific versions related to history include Parallelomania and Social cycle theory (that last article mentions the great antiquity of the tendency to see history as repeating patterns). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, social science theory is the idea of finding patterns in the past of finding patterns in the past? Meta. --Khajidha (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very vague question. I would not agree that history really "repeat itself" in the sense that most people use. If you could give me specific examples of how history actually does this and what are these so-called "mistakes", that would be much more helpful. One thing to keep in mind though: history is not a popular subject of reading or research among average people anywhere in the world.

In any case, the more things change the more they remain the same. Ask yourself these questions:

Why do humans build civilizations in the first place?
What is a state and its purpose?
What is a war and why doe they take place?
Why is the world still divided into numerous countries with their own citizens and borders after 1945?

If you could answer these questions and understand that the overall structure of human society across the world and the international order have not really substantively changed much since the beginning of civilizations (or even before that), then social/political/economic/cultural history makes much more sense. StellarHalo (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quotation from Karl Marx:

History repeats itself first by tragedy then by farce.

That is just a quote and more of a personal and emotional assertion than anything. Anyone can say that without having the explain the specific meanings, context, and nuances. StellarHalo (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 But see The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:5169:E6CE:787E:AFCC (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what Marx wrote in that essay, he is one of the people who love to compare individuals and events of vastly different set of circumstances, apples and oranges, to conclude that history repeats itself and gets "worse" all the times. For example, Napoleon managed to seize power due to his talent and successes on the battlefield while Napoleon III was only able to become president to begin with because a large enough segment of French population and society still supported his dynasty. Also, their goals as rulers were very different. Other pairs of individuals he mentioned lived decades apart, had different beliefs and ideals and goals, and did not live through the same situations. Also, he compared Louis-Philippe of France to Augustus of all people... StellarHalo (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History rhymes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]