Humanities desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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.

August 6

Missouri Civil War monument

Can anyone discover anything about this monument beyond what's in the image caption? I quote myself there:

Northern and western sides of the Civil War monument in the public square park in La Grange, Missouri, United States. "1864" seemingly is not the date of the monument's placement: Lewis County was strongly pro-Confederate, making it unlikely to be a Union monument (especially because Union monuments typically refer to "defense/preservation of the Union", not "defense of their country"), and the first Confederate monument was placed in 1867.

As I read it, the inscription is Erected to/the memory of the/soldiers/of Lewis County/Missouri/who fell in defence [sic]/of their country/1864, although it might be 1884. I think the circular figure is File:Seal of Missouri.svg, so that doesn't particularly help us. The article on Monticello, Missouri, the local county seat, is my source for claiming that the area was strongly Confederate. I've tried Google searches for <"La Grange" Missouri monument> and similar combinations, plus parts of the inscription, and I've checked the usually helpful waymarking.com, but I found nothing. Below the monument (not visible in this picture) is a plaque calling it the "Lewis County Civil War Monument" and noting that it had been restored in 2005 by the Sons of Union Veterans. I forgot about that when writing the caption. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, there's something wrong with the rotation. If you have any clue what's going on, please chime in at WP:VPT, section "Image properly rotated and not properly rotated". Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I downloaded it and looked at it, and it needs to be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original was uploaded sideways. The other sizes were all uploaded correctly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the separate entry with the same size as the original, appears to be corrupted. I can't view it or download it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the square is the Union Soldiers Monument, a marble shaft bearing the great seal of Missouri, erected in 1864 to the memory of those soldiers of Lewis County who fell "in defense of their country."

Missouri: A Guide to the Show Me State.—eric 05:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican-American War

Are there any African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islanders combatants of the Mexican-American War which history knows of? Not interested in European or South American adventurers who may have enlisted though. Asian and Pacific Islander combatants would have been interesting.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Asian Americans makes no mention of the Mexican-American War; but if there were already Asians fighting in the War of 1812 and later the Civil War wouldn't there be at least a few known Asian soldiers in the conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of African Americans#Mexican–American War.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how little there is about the subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Invisible Men: Blacks and the US. Army in the Mexican War"--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Native Americans, I am looking more for ranking officers or even enlisted soldiers/privates within the Mexican or American army instead of border tribes who fought independently like the Comanches who often could be considered a third party in the conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian immigration to the United States was really minimal. The first few Asians to settle in the United States came as part of the China trade during the early 1800s, but according to our article Chinese American, their number totaled just 325 before the California Gold Rush (which postdated the Mexican-American War). If any Asians fought on the U.S. side, they were unlikely to number more than one or two dozen, and even more unlikely to have been historically notable. Likewise, Asians had almost no presence in Mexico at the time. While there had been some movement of Asians to New Spain during the 16th and 17th centuries, if these migrants married, their descendants merged with the Mexican population. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... What about Asians and Pacific Islanders serving on US ships?... In the age of sail, ship captains found crewmen in many different ports around the world. Not sure if these would have been counted in immigration records, unless they settled in the US after leaving the ship. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a record of a Chinese sailor in Boston as early as 1798[1], but their numbers would have been tiny. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Americans can also mean Filipino American or "Manilamen" and there were already evidence of them in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. . --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lascars were South Asian sailors on European ships. This seems to suggest that there were Lascars aboard American ships in 1847. I can't find any reference to them coming ashore or settling in the US or fighting aboard war ships though it is probably likely (in albeit relatively small numbers).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repression and dissent in USA.

This is a tricky one as I am based in the United Kingdom, but I am looking for stories, articles or examples that convey the importance today of dissent in a free and democratic society from any period in U.S history. Could anyone (perhaps U.S based) help point me in the right direction? Kind regards, --Bonisklegga (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is rather a lot on this, since freedom of speech is considered a core value in the U.S. and freedom of speech is largely about protecting the right to dissent, inasmuch as popular speech does not need a whole lot of protection. You might start with our articles on First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Freedom of speech in the United States, and Freedom of the press in the United States and the linked sources. Our article on Freedom for the Thought That We Hate looks to be pretty good and links to several important Supreme Court decisions. John M Baker (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Civil Liberties Union often takes unpopular stances in defense of the right to dissent; famously defending the rights of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to assemble and demonstrate. --Jayron 32 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The big things to look at would be the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, HUAC and recently the NSA, the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and comparisons of Nixon's and Obama's abuse of executive powers against political opponents. That's a good month's worth of reading. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women suffrage in pre-1795 Poland?

Both in the article Women's suffrage and Feminism in Poland there I found this phrase: "Prior to the Partition of Poland in 1795, the tax-paying women were allowed to take part in political life", with no reference what so ever. This phrase need to be specified. What does it mean? In every country in the world, women "took part in political life" in one way or another, for example in France were women did so through political debates in political salons. Does this phrase mean that they had some kind of formal, legal, political rights? Some kind of suffrage rights? Does any one know if women had some kind of suffrage in Poland prior to 1795? It would not be impossible, since other countries, such as Sweden, did so in the same century. Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book states that women in the 1600s (17th century) participated in the Sejm, which was the Polish equivalent of the House of Lords; that book also notes other instances of women having direct political influence, either de facto or de jure. --Jayron 32 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, an interesting book! But did the women had some sort of voting right or seat in the sejm, or did they simply participate in the political debate in informal level? Because of the participation was merely informal, the it does not belong in the article Women's suffrage.--Aciram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly were women in pre-partition Poland who were rich, ambitious and influential, but there was no such thing as female suffrage in Poland before 1918. Women did not hold offices and could not be elected as members of parliament. In this regard, Poland did not differ from other European countries of the time. "To take part in political life" can mean a lot of things; in this case, it may only refer to behind-the-scenes scheming, not official power. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were a limited suffrage for women in Sweden and Corsica in the 18th-century, so I wondered if the phrase intended something of that sort: perhaps some female magnates were allowed to vote to the Sejm? But if not, the phrase should perhaps be deleted from the Women's suffrage-article, since there is no reference...--Aciram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about cursive handwriting

Back in the "old days", when I was in school, we had a specific course in school that was devoted to penmanship. In the younger grades, you would learn printing and, as you progressed through to the older grades, you transitioned over to cursive writing. We all used standard penmanship books, in which the "models" of letters typically looked like those seen here, at this page: D'Nealian. So, my curiosity brings about this question. If we are all taught from the same basic principles of cursive handwriting, and we all use the same "models", how is it that everyone's cursive handwriting is so wildly different from everyone else's? I mean, oftentimes, it's not even close. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume that, after 20-30-40 or more years, people wouldn't slowly change the way they write? Your assumption, that a process taught to a bunch of people when they were 10 years old would, after 30 years, be reproduced perfectly by every one of those people in exactly the same way, seems the more outrageous. --Jayron 32 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Re-read my question. Where did I say that, exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I see samples of my own handwriting at age 10 or so, I can see that it's mine, but I'm not so sure anyone else would. One factor is that we tend to write slowly and carefully in elementary school, but over time practicality has a way of forcing you to write in the most efficient way you can, rather than trying to go slowly and carefully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The eye is very capable of discerning small distinctions. The premise that our handwritings differ markedly is flawed. In fact our handwriting is remarkably the same. But we have the ability to discern relatively minor visual distinctions. It is by this means that we distinguish for instance the difference between the handwriting of different people. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we were given models to use--but after that, what was stressed was legibility, rather than absolute conformity to the model. For what it's worth, here's a site for the Palmer method which more than once mentions individuality....the implication is that you could both use this method, but display individual style: http://palmermethod.com/ Herbivore (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little like how a class of students are all taught the same material, but when asked to write an essay on a specified topic, they'll all produce unique essays. Not one will even start with the same sentence as any other. Handwriting is also governed by individual factors. Graphology claims that personality traits etc are revealed in our handwriting. Whether that's true or not, it's undeniable that signatures of notable people have been collectors' items for centuries and are very highly prized. If we all wrote the same, the signatures of George Washington, Adolf Hitler and John F Kennedy would be worthless scratchings that nobody would want, because a computer could be programmed to produce exact replicas of them, from the template set down by our teachers. Also, signatures are almost as good as fingerprints for ID purposes, which is why they appear on passports, drivers licences, bank notes etc, as corroborative evidence, and why people are sometimes asked to re-sign some document because the first attempt was too dissimilar to the sample signature. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the Handwriting article. And google brings up this which quotes a US government report that taps such factors as visual perception and motor abilities, plus a tendency to individualism and subconscious habit. It seems that since writing is a form of expression it becomes a form of self-expression too. P.S. See also Regional handwriting variation. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It varies with time through laziness? We all seek to save time and in doing so we find different abbreviations. See Teeline Shorthand. I'm only 26 and I learned to handwrite in elementary school with a book as the OP describes, but in adulthood I've incorporated parts of Teeline into my normal handwriting, for example looping a letter d from in, curling out. The loop on my g's now go to the right. --81.145.165.214 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider affectation: conscious adoption of features that make one's writing distinctive (or conform to an in-group). I soon dropped most of the goofy quirks I tried on in adolescence, but at least two things had permanent effects: some time overseas and some study of calligraphy. — On another hand, I can't tell my mother's hand from her sister's, and their mother's (who was a schoolteacher) is recognizably similar. —Tamfang (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was Leonardo da Vinci Italian?

Even if today someone born in ~~Pisa~~Vinci would call himself Italian, wouldn't it be the case that he would have defined himself as florentine (or fiorentino) back then?

Does Wikipedia has a policy for such cases, and similar cases of people who lived in a place before a nation was founded?

Should we call them by the present national denomym retroactively?

The same applies to Vivaldi, Galileo Galilei and many others, not only in the Italian region, but also in present day Germany. For example, Beethoven died in 1827, Germany exists since 1870.

Or would you say that Jesus is Palestinian too?

--Scicurious (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from Pisa would typically identify as Pisan or Italian; unless I'm mistaken, Florentine would have been an unlikely identity for anyone not from the city of Florence or its very immediate environs (such as Vinci).
I personally would call Leonardo Florentine or Italian. We go with "Italian" in the lede in that case, presumably because it is better understood by more readers.
The terms "Italy" and "Germany" were in wide use in the periods relevant to Vivaldi, Galileo, and Beethoven: it's just that they weren't nation-states. But in that era there simply weren't nation-states. I can't speak to Vivaldi in this respect, but Galileo wrote in Italian at a time where almost all other scientists wrote in Latin, which shows a strong attachment to Italian identity, and similarly I would say that Beethoven's identity as a German is not in doubt.
Clearly the term Palestinian is anachronistic when applied 2000+ years ago, just as we would not call someone from that era Israeli, Saudi or Jordanian.
The policy gets murky before the age of nation-states and the modern notion of citizenship. There is a certain extent to which you have to use common sense. - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Leonardo was from Vinci Republic of Florence (therefore, he's called da Vinci). Galileo was from Pisa. The question remains the same.--Scicurious (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia policy on this issue, there's WP:OPENPARA, which states the criterion as "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." However, this goes on to use Petrarch as an example, listing his nationality as "Italian" (not Tuscan or Florentine). The general guideline probably therefore should be to use (a) what reliable sources use for a person's nationality (which gives us "Galilean" for Jesus), or (b) the results of discussions on individual talk pages. This question might be better at the Village Pump (WP:VPP). Tevildo (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course just because there is a guideline to cover it doesn't mean that there aren't disagreements. Nikola Tesla, Nicki Minaj and George Bernard Shaw have all been subject to disagreements over their nationality. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate answer is "We do what reliable sources do, and don't make our own judgments on decisions on what we think should be done, merely because we have "reasons"." If the preponderance of reliable sources call Da Vinci Italian, we do too, even if we have reasons we could list why we think those sources are wrong. --Jayron 32 01:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Jayron said. It's worth also echoing what was said earlier: the word "Italy" (or more accurately, "Italia"), has been in use for far longer than the nation of Italy has existed. The Italian peninsula has been referred to as Italia for over 2000 years. Roman historians also began referring to the area of modern Germany and the people who lived there as Germani since the time of Julius Caesar, even though there was not a nation called Germany until the late 19th century. It may seem strange to us now, but there was absolutely a time when most Europeans did not tie their identity to the state of which they were subjects. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation before 1806. —Tamfang (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Which never included all of Germany, and also included many non-German areas like Northern Italy and Bohemia (Czech). It was far from a nation state, and for many centuries before it folded in 1806, it was a shell of an organization, weakly held together by historical tradition, and having no real power over the constituent states which by-and-large managed their own affairs as independent principalities for several centuries before it's abolition by Napoleon. During the Habsburg Empire, any power held by the Imperial office came more from the territorial and financial power of Austria than from imperial institutions themselves. After the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, any remaining vestiges of imperial power itself became quite meaningless. --Jayron 32 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about nations, not about nation-states. (I'm one of those cranks who do not accept the latter's claim to be synonymous with the former.) I mentioned the Empire, which named itself in part after the German nation even if it did not encompass the whole, in snarky support of the proposition that there existed a German nation. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mozart and Mozart's nationality. There was a huge amount of debate over this on his talk page.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No because Italy did not exist when he was born. Erunaquest (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta wonder how someone got the idea to unify something that did not exist. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of a virgin-martyr in Christianity

What is the significance of a virgin-martyr in Christianity? Why would the blessed saint be venerated as a virgin and as a martyr? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most organized religions (and nations, and many movements) have one or another degree of cult around their martyrs. Most forms of Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence of sin. I'm not sure what more there is to say.
But I'm not sure I understand the question, and you may wish to expand on it. Are you asking how/when this came to be? If not, then what are you asking? - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was something special with treating "virgin" and "martyr" as one term: "virgin-martyr". Since when did Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence of sin, or did this association predate Christianity? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily with innocence of sin, but celibacy as an ideal; in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul notes that celibacy (refraining from all sexual activity) is the highest state, but concedes that as people find sex a strong drive, that it is allowable to be married for the purpose of having sex. --Jayron 32 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the current teaching (thanks to Tertullian and later like minded "fighters of heresy"), but many early sects of Christianity (before the 66 books were canonized) demanded celibacy and eschewed marriage. See for example Acts of Paul and Thecla and, especially, Acts of Thomas in which Thomas (or his twin brother Jesus) get into a series of predicaments as a result of preaching celibacy even in the context of marriage. "If you refrain from this filthy intercourse you become temples holy and pure, released from afflictions and troubles" (Acts of Thomas 12). Jesus himself was said to appear to a king's daughter and her husband on their wedding night(!) and convince them to remain celibate. "I have had no conjugal intercourse with a temporary husband, whose end is repentance and bitterness of soul, because I have been united to my true Husband", i.e. God. (Acts of Thomas 14). The idea of remaining celibate to maintain purity has strong roots in historical Christianity. The Acts of John also taught celibacy and contains the story of Drusiana, who was raised from the dead after a miraculous snakebite prevented a necrophiliac from ruining her chastity (read it, you can't make this stuff up lol). This may also be interesting to the OP.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that assumes mainstream living Christianity is the heresy, and that true Christianity is the historical one suppressed by the ancestors of mainstream Christianity? My question is concerned with mainstream living Christianity, regardless of whether they are holding the truth. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those works are Apocrypha, which are excellent works for understanding early Christianity in historical context, but do not hold relevance as theological or dogmatic guidance for any modern, mainstream, or significant Christian sects, and have not for many, many centuries. --Jayron 32 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to remember when this place became so adversarial, or has it always been so? One wouldn't expect to be sucked into a debate by posting references at a reference desk, but this is the internet, I guess. @71.79.234.132: No, that assumes no such thing. It means that before one book or another was declared heretical, they all contributed to early Christian thought. You asked "Since when did Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence...", I pointed out that such a belief has been present since the earliest days of Christianity. @Jayron, I didn't claim that the Apocrypha hold relevance as theological or dogmatic guidance for modern Christianity, in fact, my very first sentence implied I'm well aware that they don't. Although the Docetic/Gnostic/Arian/etc. theologies found in some of these books were declared heretical and the books themselves subsequently denounced, the traditions/myths/histories/etc. remained in the consciousness of Christians and were part of the development of what today is mainstream. I admire the variety of knowledge you demonstrate through your excellent posts here, so I'm sure I don't have to tell you, Christianity didn't develop in a vacuum--in fact, there were many Christianities and in order to understand modern ideas (such as the "virgin-martyr"), we need to understand their history...all of their history. The apocrypha remained popular long after they were excluded from the canon. For example Thecla is considered one of the very first virgin-martyrs. She is still venerated to this day, with all the major orthodox churches giving her a feast day. And, in the 14th century, Giotto painted "St. John Raising Drusiana" from the dead in the Peruzzi Chapel. While not valid as modern sources of official theology, these books may be the source of many beliefs (doctrinal or otherwise) we adhere to today and have, at the very least, served to perpetuate and reinforce ancient ideas such as the one about which the OP has inquired.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made no statement that any reasonable person could interpret as being adversarial. --Jayron 32 22:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links! Oh, boy! Lots of links and reading! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk had some good background on virgin martyrs recently: Humanities Reference Desk archives: virgin martyrs -- 02:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Tampico Affair?

I'm trying to put better categories, description, date, etc. on Commons:File:1A1182101XVIII001 (15248753605). I'm guessing this would have to be a photo from the time of the Tampico Affair in 1914, leading to the occupation of Veracruz. Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone know anything more specific? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay in replying User:Jmabel, but I've had a couple of attempts at this with not much to show for it. The nearest battleship in your photo seems to me to be a South Carolina-class battleship, which means that she was not among the warships that participated in the Tampico Affair. In our US Atlantic Fleet article, there's a list of ships for 1913 and as you can see, there were a large number of battleships in that particular command. However, that's just my opinion and somebody more familiar with US warships might be more certain. I've left a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history which might yield better results. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. At right, below the original photo I asked about, I've now placed File:Tampico Incident.jpg. Are you saying this is a different class of ship? Because it sure looks similar to me. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reading our Tampico Affair article (an event of which I was totally ignorant until I read your post), it seems that there were only two Dreadnoughts present; being USS Florida (BB-30) and USS Utah (BB-31), both being Florida-class battleships. In your New York image, the nearest battleship is certainly a Dreadnought (note the superimposed main armament}, but the arrangement of the forward superstructure seems to be quite different to the Florida class, and the aft lattice mast seems to be well behind the second funnel, whereas in the Florida class, it is directly behind. The nearest match to those features that I could find was the South Carolina class. So yes, I think that the ship in your New York photo is not one that was directly involved in the incident, although ships of the class that I believe it to be were serving in the Atlantic Fleet at that time. Your second image shows a great line of Dreadnoughts and as only two were actually involved it seems unlikely that this photo actually shows warships deploying to Mexico, although it may well have been captioned to that effect on publication. If you think about it, the chances of a press photographer sailing with the fleet, developing the images, getting them ashore and then taking them by train to wherever the newspaper was published, make highly improbable (in my opinion) that any actual photographs of the action would have been available at the time and that stock images of the Atlantic Fleet would have been used instead. I just want to reiterate that I may be mistaken about the South Carolina class identification, but that's my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In that case, we ought not have the latter in our article Tampico Incident, captioned as "U.S. battleships steaming toward Veracruz following the Tampico Affair." Not an area about which I know much; I was being guided by our own article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could just add "purporting to show US battleships" or something similar. It was obviously published as a depiction of the event and is therefore relevant. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me, and I'll do the same with the photo. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jmabel and Alansplodge -- I happen to have an interest in this subject and believe you both may have inadvertently misunderstood what event is being represented by the photo of "U.S. battleships steaming towards Mexico." This photo, taken by Robert Enrique Muller (an official photographer of the U.S. Navy at the time), depicts the main force of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet under the command of Admiral Badger steaming from Hampton Roads toward Tampico on the orders of President Wilson. The original source for the photo may be found here, and you may note that it is copyrighted 1914 -- the year in which the Tampico Incident took place. The dispatch of Badger's ships occurred after the incident involving Admiral Mayo, and was intended as a reinforcement of the squadron under Admiral Fletcher's command, which was the force containing (among other ships) the Utah and the Florida. Some primary sources that corroborate this may be found here and here.

Because the photo was properly captioned before, I am going to revert the "purporting to show" language that has been added. If you disagree with that decision, please let me know -- I will watch this page. Best, Jrt989 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. You are back to what I thought in the first place; I was just presuming Alan knew more than I did. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input User:Jrt989, perhaps you could add a mention of the deployment of the Atlantic Fleet to the article, because (unless I'm missing something) it doesn't seem to appear at present. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- the article at present is not a model of accurate information. I will try to add something to it. Best, Jrt989 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]