Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 June 27

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

June 27

What does this quote from the Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan article mean?

The article (Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan) says: The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. However, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster, 705 of the Titanic's crew and passengers survived. What does this mean? Or, what is it supposed to mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The others must have died from something other than drowning. Hypothermia, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I guess that makes sense. It still seems oddly worded. Or designed to confuse. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The full text of the story is available online here thanks to Project Gutenberg. There is no detail in it as to whether people died by drowning, hypothermia, or other ways. The story follows one man who, together with a young child, is thrown by the collision off the ship and onto the iceberg; he sees a lifeboat in the water but they don't see him, and he doesn't get a clear view of what happens to the ship. This is all detailed in Chapter VII. The collision is more violent than in the real-life Titanic disaster and most of the boats cannot be launched. Later, when the man and child are rescued and brought ashore, he learns (in Chapter X) that there were only 11 other survivors, presumably on the one and only boat that could be launched.

In short, the confusing sentence needs to be rewritten. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm. So, I think I figured this out. (Maybe?) Let's say that on the Titan, only 13 people (out of 2500) survived. That means that 2487 (that is, 2500 minus 13) did not survive. If 2487 people died, it is indeed accurate to say that "more than half died". Any number greater than 1250 would satisfy the requirement of "more than half". It just so happens that the actual number (2487) happens to be well above the minimum required number (1250). So, it is indeed semantically and mathematically accurate to claim that "more than half drowned", when 2487 out of 2500 drowned. (Of course, it's a bit misleading. But that's a different question.) I think in this article, they are trying to highlight the similarities between the Titan ship and the Titanic ship. So, it would be an accurate similarity to say that: "More than half died in the Titanic incident, and, similarly, more than half died in the Titan incident". So, it simply reinforces the similarity. The actual article, as I quoted above, stated: "The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. However, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster." The word however is adding to the problem. It makes more sense to remove the word however. It makes more sense to say that: "The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. In fact, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster." Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. Read the story, or at least the chapters I've indicated. (Note, by the way, that the Project Gutenberg page I linked to includes this story and three others; if you start searching for words to find the right place in the story, be careful about going into the other stories accidentally.) I repeat, the story does not say how the victims died. There is no reason to mention "more than half" of them in the first place, and the reference to 2,500 passengers is also wrong. The story says (in Chapter I) that the total passenger and crew capacity was 3,000, but there was only lifeboat capacity for 500, the minimum required by law. So 2,500 is the number of people that would have died if the boats were fully loaded and were the only way anyone was saved. As I said, that's not what happens in the story. The actual number of passengers is given in Chapter I and again in Chapter III as 2,000. Chapters VII and IX mention that there were 3,000 people aboard, so there were 1,000 crew.

(The real-life Titanic, by the way, also had space for about 2,000 passengers, but it was not full when disaster struck. About 1,300 passengers and 900 crew were on board, and there was lifeboat capacity for about 1,100, but many of the boats were launched without being filled to capacity.) --69.159.9.187 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to click the link you provided. For some reason, I could not "download" the short story. In any event, back to my above post. I am not saying that the information is accurate. I am saying that that is what I believed to be the intent of the article's language and the intent of the editors.. To highlight the similarities between the two ships. And clever wording accomplished that. Without worrying about the exact numbers, I believe that the very generic phrase "more than half died" probably is true as a similarity for both ships. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Car brand identification

What brand of card is this[1]? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's potentially a Jaguar, the badge seems to be a stylised version of the roar/growl symbol similar to this. I do not know the veracity of that image though (I found it on an eBay listing entitled "4x Jaguar J Wheel Center Hub Caps Emblem Badge Decal Symbol Sticker Sport New") and certainly haven't seen an oval shaped jag badge before with no lettering. Nanonic (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The badge is just a generic "tiger head" symbol - see, for example, here, where they're on sale for the Kia Optima, and Google gives us plenty of similar sites (blacklisted here, doubtless for good reasons) where the same design is available for various other Kia and Hyundai models. I can't immediately identify the car in the photo, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It’s a Ford – probably a Mondeo. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 10:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Derrida and sovereignty

I got into a brief argument recently on another forum, about sovereignty (in the context of the UK vs. EU). The entire argument (or at least, my involvement in it) went as follows:

• X: The whole concept of sovereignty is partly magical and theological anyway...
• Me: In what way? Isn't it just a matter of where ultimate authority lies?
• X: Sovereignty is demonstrably a theological concept. If you're talking about authority, say "authority".
• Me: Then demonstrate it. [I also provided a dictionary definition suggesting that Sovereignty is more specific that just "authority"].
• X: It's already been done.

Now, I'm not going to spend £55 pounds on a book in order to follow up an argument on a now-locked comments thread, but I'd nonetheless like to know what the actual argument is. I've looked at both our articles on Derrida and Sovereignty, and I can't find either a clear indication of Derrida's view on sovereignty, nor any statement that sovereignty is inherently a magical or theological concept. (That's not to say people haven't invoked such concepts to justify sovereignty, but I would consider that a separate issue). Iapetus (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sovereign" essentially means "ruling".[2] So I suppose the question is, "Who rules a Brit? The EU or the UK?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The original discussion was about that, but the argument I ended up in was about the meaning of sovereignty itself, which (according to the other person) is (according to Derrida) inherently "magical" and "theological". What I'm interested in now is what Derrida actually said on the subject. Iapetus (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

From this article (in French) [3], Derrida uses the word "souverain" (sovereign) as a synonym of ruler and "souveraineté" (sovereignty) to mean the power exercised by the ruler, which is not the usual meaning of the word in either French or English. So I'm not sure Derrida's concepts are really relevant to your debate (more likely, the other poster was just making an argument to authority without necessarily being familiar with the content of the book). From the article, Derrida seems to argue that the exercise of power is akin to the dangerous actions of a wild beast; he uses ancient folk tales and other works of literature that feature wolves and other wild beasts as examples that illustrate this arbitrary and brutal use of force by rulers. --Xuxl (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

With that terminology, you could be describing a mugging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - it does look like the other person was talking nonsense. Iapetus (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of people killed at Auschwitz

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to Wikipedia, the number of people killed at Auschwitz was 1.1 million people. I thought it was 4 million people. Is the death toll according to Wikipedia correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mental jogger (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC) The numbers for The Holocaust are estimates. We'll never know exact numbers for certain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Indeed, but they're typically fairly nailed down a bit better than that. The link provided has a number of different tables to break down where the killings took place. It might be helpful to provide the source for the 4 million number. Keep in mind that there were a wide network of different kinds of camps in different areas, so the 4 million figure may have been some kind of sub-total. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC) The website of the Nizkor Project ("an Internet-based project run by B'nai Brith Canada which is dedicated to countering Holocaust denial") has a brief article called The Auschwitz Gambit: The Four Million Variant which says: "On May 12th, 1945, a few months after the liberation of Auschwitz, a Soviet State Commission reported that not less than four million people were murdered there. This number was displayed at the Auschwitz State Museum until 1991, when it was lowered to 1.1 million. The total death toll for Jews in the Holocaust, however, stayed at about six million". A Google search does indeed bring up a number of articles attempting to use this discrepancy to discredit all the Holocaust statistics. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC) This is obviously the latest sockpuppet of our troll friend. Bringing up the erroneous Soviet numbers for the death toll at Auschwitz—which no non-Soviet-aligned scholar accepted—is one of the stock red herrings thrown out by Holocaust deniers. Their next post will be among the lines of, "How do we know all the death figures weren't made up?" --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Yes, as if somehow "only" 1 million murdered by the Nazis at Auschwitz is somehow morally acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) No, the argument is that the fact historians are not a unanimous hive mind is proof of a conspiracy (to conceal that no one actually died), because honest individuals never disagree or make mistakes. "This historian says one thing, but that historian says another, therefore alien lizard overlords." It really shows you the kind of (il)logic you're dealing with. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Oh, I'm well aware of that kind of logic. It's called conspiracy theory. Like JFK being killed by an incredibly vast collaboration which those co-conspirators somehow managed to keep secret. Unless, as you may be hinting, those millions of Jews who disappeared were abducted by flying saucers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Eumenides

Were the Eumenides ever accused of breaking the unity of time?--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, you're asking whether it has been said that Aeschylus' play takes place over more than 24 hours? Rojomoke (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rojomoke: Indeed. If Orestes had to go to Athens from Delphi, to stand trial, it would mean that between the prologue (in Delphi) and the episodes (in Athens) there is a gap of more than 24 hours.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that (to my knowledge) the first attestation of the "three unities" is from Aristotle, who lived a good two centuries after Aeschylus. There are, I would imagine, plenty of Greek dramas that don't adhere to the then-unknown unities, just as there are many post-Aristotelian dramatists (perhaps you've heard of some) who consciously departed from them. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, our article Classical unities#Aristotle's unities says, "Unlike his prescriptive attitude regarding the plot (unity of action), Aristotle here merely remarks on the typical duration of a tragedy's action, and does not suggest any kind of imperative that it always ought to be so. He was writing after the golden age of Greek drama, and many Greek playwrights wrote plays that do not fit within these conventions." Deor (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Do we know whom -if anybody- was Boris Johnson named after?--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Boris Badenov? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C915:F679:15DB:E494 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, Boris the Spider came along 2 years too late to be the inspiration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

For clarity are you referring to all components of his personal name "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel" or just the Boris part, or some other part? Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The de Pfeffel part probably came from [4] the surname of his great grandmother who was a descendent of recent German nobility. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The given name Boris is first found in written records in the case of the Bulgarian ruler Prince Boris I (852-889), who adopted Christianity in 864 AD and imposed it on his people. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to The Wit and Wisdom of Boris Johnson by Harry Mount (p. 8); ' “Alexander Boris weighed 9 pounds 1 ounce at birth and is a remarkably lusty child.” Stanley Johnson reports the birth of his son to Boris Litwin, a friend and benefactor who Boris is named after'. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

More detail in Boris: The Rise of Boris Johnson by Andrew Gimson. Stanley and Charlotte (Boris J's parents) "...took the Greyhound bus to Mexico City... where they met Boris Litwin, whose daughter was a friend of a friend of Stanley's at Oxford. When Litwin saw Charlotte's condition and heard that Stanley proposed to take her all the way to Laredo on the bus, he was appalled and the following exchange took place:

Litwin: 'I want to give you a first-class ticket to New York.'

Charlotte: 'Oh, Mr Litwin...'

Litwin: 'Call me Boris.'

Charlotte: 'Whatever the baby is, I shall call it Boris.'"

It goes on to say that Litwin died before he received the telegram quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And more: "One night, a man called Boris Litwin and his wife invited us to their beautiful home in San Angel. Boris was a Russian who, like Trotsky, had come to live in Mexico. Trotsky had been murdered with an ice pick, but Boris was still going strong. His daughter, Barbara, was the girlfriend of one of my Exeter College friends. At that first lunch, I mentioned to the Litwins that Charlotte and I were planning to return to the United States the way we had come. By Greyhound bus. All 20 hours of it, barring floods, earthquake, ambush or mechanical breakdowns. Boris didn’t say anything, but he looked accusingly at me. I knew what he was thinking. Two days later the Litwins invited us again, this time for dinner. They showered us with presents. I remember a shawl, a wicker basket, a poncho for Charlotte and some silver ornaments. Just as we were saying goodbye, overwhelmed by their generosity, Boris thrust two Mexico City–Laredo air tickets into our hands. “You can forget about the Greyhound bus now!” he told us. It was Charlotte who, on the spur of the moment, came up with an idea for repaying his kindness. “If our baby is a boy,” she told him, as we gratefully accepted the tickets, “we’ll call him Boris!”. [5] Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Should all this be mentioned in the article? I suppose that many people will wonder how come the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom one of the most important British politicians has a Russian first name.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll do just that when I have a few moments. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice that there is a Boris Litwin Jewelers in Cincinnati - is this linked to the same man (it does claim to be run by the fourth generation of the same family)? Wymspen (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, but couldn't find anything that linked the two. Cincinnati is a long way from Mexico City, but who knows? BTW, the Boris Johnson article has now been updated. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It was later deleted as "trivial", but I restored it to its rightful place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir; after a lot more pruning by the same somewhat ruthless editor, it now stands as "Johnson was given his middle name of "Boris" after a Russian émigré the couple had once met in Mexico". I suppose I can live with that. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)