Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

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.

April 30

Modern Enid Blyton reprints

It's often said by (usually left-leaning) people that the editing of the reprints "doesn't change any of the plots".

Is that statement true?

For example, removing statements from The Famous Five that girls with short hair look like boys or that boys cannot wear pretty dresses are not neutral decisions. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for a judgement call, but it sounds like you've already made up your mind. ApLundell (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you may be interested in Are the days of Enid Blyton bashing over? which attempts a balanced overview. Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, unfamiliar with the books, after looking at Alan's link, it looks like there is a sort of bowdlerization going on here, to be sure one with different concerns than Bowdler's, but still a similar process.

However I don't see any obvious way in which it affects the plot. That's not saying the changes are neutral, just that I don't see how they change the basic structure of the story. Unless boys not being able to wear pretty dresses is somehow a causal aspect of the narrative? I haven't read the books, so I suppose I can't rule that out, but intuitively it sounds unlikely. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about it, and it seems to me that "doesn't change the plot" is remarkably narrow grounds on which to defend changes to a work, even one for children. Robert A. Heinlein is called the "master plotter", and he was great at it, but if his stories had only plot, I wouldn't have been interested in them.

So I was idly wondering whether any writer ever took on the challenge of writing two stories, with identical plots, that make directly opposite philosophical points. Probably too easy, stated that way. How about this: The plots should be exactly the same; character development and characterization can differ, but only subtly. And they should both be good stories that competently support their opposite theses, which should be interesting in themselves.

Anyone know of such an attempt? I can imagine Italo Calvino trying something like this; you might point to two chapters of If on a winter's night a traveler and claim they satisfy the conditions, but that's maybe a little too abstract. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You might like The Last Ringbearer. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mousetrap murder mystery play by Agatha Christie reputedly changes its ending to keep audiences guessing throughout its run of 64 years (still counting). Blooteuth (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these are interesting. I might be interested in reading the LOTR parody except first I'd have to read LOTR, and I've always found Tolkien a bit of a snooze.

Neither really sounds like quite what I had in mind. Changing the ending counts as changing the plot, so that one's out. Telling the story from a different character's perspective, a la Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, is also more of a change than I wanted to allow.

I meant, the same characters do the same things, except I suppose they can do different things that don't have a causal influence on later developments, but that should be kept to a minimum. Different information might be given about their background, though it shouldn't be contradictory between the two stories, just a different selection of facts. Different language can be chosen to explain why they do things. All of these differences should be kept as subtle as possible.

But in the end, it turns out that one of the stories is a defense of emotion as the source of value, and the other is an argument that there are no values but survival, which end reason should rigorously serve. Or something like that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Parallel literature would probably be a place to look, but I don't know that anyone has actually created exactly that kind of experimental novel.

It nearly happens by accident. A lot of old sci-fi has very similar plot lines, but somehow it still manages to exactly illustrate whatever political point the author wanted to make. ApLundell (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Ringbearer isn't exactly parody, it's more like unusually good fanfic. It got crappy reviews from critics who took it in the wrong spirit, but I liked it a lot. The movie Rashomon might be closer to what you want, though. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, parody would be what to call it for copyright purposes — see The Wind Done Gone. I don't think Rashomon captures it either; again, the stories are supposed to be from the point of view of the same character(s). Everything happens the same, but little background details, choices of wording, stuff like that, when you add it all up, you find you have a completely opposite story. --Trovatore (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Confederacy at the end of the war: Southern independence vs the preservation of slavery

The Civil War was fought over slavery, this is an undeniable fact. It was direct and indirect cause to the war. The South began a war of independence/secession over the issue (state rights, tariffs, enter every Confederate apologist's excuse to skirt around slavery) of slavery. Let's establish that as the starting ground...My question is that how did the rationale for the war evolve over the course of the war in response to emancipation and the Union commandeering of slaves and the destruction of plantations? Did the anyone in the Confederacy ever considered emancipation for the sake of continuing the war with the North? Who were the notable Confederate dissidents against slavery/were there any abolitionist in the army or government of the Confederacy who were more in favor of Southern independence than the preservation of slavery. --96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no consideration of abolition by the Confederate ruling class. Any who considered it were wise to keep quiet. Toward the end the South did grudgingly and half-heartedly consider arming slaves out of desperation (and even did organize a small unit or so, but too late for them to see combat), and I think the presumption -- or anyway, a presumption -- was these soldiers would be given freedom after the victory. Just those soldiers though; not a general emancipation. And I'm not even sure it was ever decided that they would indeed be freed.

Yeah there were a lot of southerners who had no use for slavery. Particularly hill country folk in the uplands and mountains of the Appalachians -- eastern Tennessee and so forth. But there wasn't any organized opposition to slavery among the lowland ruling classes. It was, essentially, illegal to advocate abolition in the South. And if not illegal, dangerous. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia is an interesting case, with at least some Union sympathy combined with Union occupation leading it to split from Virginia. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.41.155.253 -- Even before the fighting started, a few people pointed out that starting a war might not be the best way to preserve slavery, since it would probably change the line which fugitive slaves had to cross to attain freedom, from the Canadian border to the Ohio River -- and unless there was a quick or bloodless southern victory, there might be instability and turmoil which would shake up the status quo.

I doubt that there were prominent public abolitionists in the Confederacy, but towards the end of the war, some were in favor of drafting blacks as soldiers, which raised the possibility that it might be practically necessary to promise such soldiers their future freedom (as Herostratus has said)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the Confederate Constitution. Note that emancipation would have been unconstitutional. The CSA government of course didn't have the power to interfere in such an internal matter. The states had some additional powers under the CSA constitution, e.g. adjoining states could enter into navigation-related interstate compacts without congressional approval (Article I, Section 10, final sentence), but the bill of rights (Article I, Section 9), which explicitly bound the states, included (clause 4) a prohibition on laws "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves". This could have been amended, as the only unamendable section was (like under the US Constitution) the provision guaranteeing to each state its equal representation in the Senate, but still it's something that would have been much more complicated than any one state deciding to take the risk of emancipation. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does John S. Mosby answer the OP's question? "In the letter, Mosby explained his reasons as to why he fought for the Confederacy, despite personally disapproving of slavery." --Jayron 32 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He claimed to disapprove of slavery, but, according to our article, "during the war, he had kept a slave, Aaron Burton". This, along with him fighting for the Confederacy, suggests that he may have just found it politically convenient to make that claim, similar to a certain modern politician who claimed he "didn't inhale". StuRat (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cookbooks

Are cookbooks made by mostly female authors or people of both sexes who choose female names? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cookbooks are written by both male and female authors... but the male chefs usually author cookbooks in their own (male) names. Search "cookbooks" on Amazon and you quickly find hits for best selling cookbooks by male celebrity chefs like Gordon Ramsey, Bobby Flay, Geoffrey Zakarian and Alton Brown. They all want to capitalize on the name recognition that comes with their fame as chefs by selling cookbooks, and using a pseudonym (male or female) would defeat that goal. The same is true for female chefs. So.. I would say that if you see a female name as the author, it is probably written by a woman. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe unless it was written by Betty Crocker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My siblings and I learned to cook - as so quite probably many little boys and girls in Australia did with mum - from our mum's copy of The Margaret Fulton Cookbook. My mum's granddaughters and grandsons are learning to cook from the very same 1978 copy of that book.

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the mother of all cookbooks, Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management of 1861. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Category:English food writers shows a small majority of females, also Category:American cookbook writers. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen rules and refugees in Germany

When Germany allowed several hundred thousand refugees to enter their country, haven't they infringed common Schengen immigration rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpierrepit (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which Schengen are you talking about, and why do you think immigration violates the rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Agreement would be the logical deduction Bugs. AFAIK, all the nations of the Schengen Area have admitted significant numbers of migrants during the European refugee crisis. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An OP should explain what he's talking about. The reader shouldn't have to "deduce" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For European users, the question is quite clear. You shouldn't feel obliged to respond to every single question on these desks. --62.178.231.82 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, Mr. Drive-By, and the audience is not just Europe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, Mr Baseball Bugs. But I frequently suppress my urge to make a snarky comment when a question makes no sense to me because I'm not American. Go thou and do likewise. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should direct your complaint to the drive-by. There's no reason for any OP to just assume that everyone in the English-speaking world knows what he's referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_{WP:CIR here. Blooteuth (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

I don't believe this is the case. Germany got the biggest share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpierrepit (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Schengen agreement does not imply freedom of travelling for refugees registered by one of the member States. The politics regarding of Germany remains within such boundaries. An external view and comments as published by the Congress in the USA. --Askedonty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I feel you might be thinking about the Dublin Regulation, not the Schengen Agreement. If you speak German, here’s some Information regarding legal issues. In particular, according to Article 17 of the Dublin (III) Regulation, all member states are free to "derogate from the responsibility criteria, in particular on humanitarian and compassionate grounds."

Alansplodge: Many Germans felt that the other EU member states didn’t contribute their share, particularly the large ones like France and the UK. The border states (Italy and Greece in particular) will probably think that’s ironic, though. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 17:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: the UK has claimed to be concentrating on taking migrants direct from refugee camps in the conflict area, although in terms of absolute numbers, it falls far short of Germany's effort. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article linked above: "Four states – Germany, Sweden, Italy and France – received around two-thirds of the EU's asylum applications and granted almost two-thirds of protection status in 2014. Sweden, Hungary and Austria were among the top recipients of EU asylum applications per capita, when adjusted for their own populations, with 8.4 asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants in Sweden, 4.3 in Hungary and 3.2 in Austria."Clipname (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What jurisdiction's license plate has the most possible combinations?

The regular vehicle registration plate, not the vanity kind. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I start the bidding at 3 English letters and 4 numerals for some US states (over 100 million possible license plates per state) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States by state or territory would be the place for you to start your research. --Jayron 32 11:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, Ontario probably has the most in North America, with 4 letters and 3 numbers. Xenon54 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese license plates can have an English letter (excluding the letters O and I) followed by five numbers or letters, greatly increasing the number of possible combinations (if my calculations are correct, to 1,090,450,176 possible license plates for the whole country). However, whether all of the five are not numbers is dependent on provincial/city convention so in practice the possible combinations are less. Alcherin (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License plates issued after 2007 have apparently been limited to 2 letters in the last five places, but any two of the last five places can still be letters. At any rate, this reduces the number of possible combinations below 1 billion. Alcherin (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian license plates are separated by province/equivalents rather than applying to the whole country. Following the provincial code, there's a 2 number code (and sometimes a letter as well) for the district - 117 district codes for Tamil Nadu. After than comes up to two letters and four numbers. That's potentially 790,920,000 combinations for the state of Tamil Nadu. Alcherin (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Ontario, standard plates have four letters and three numbers. Some classes of personal truck have a different length for their plates (two letters, five numbers). I'm not sure about I/O, but that would leave us with 331,776,000 for cars (24 x 24 x 24 x 10 x 10 x 10) and 57,600,000 for trucks (24 x 24 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10) for 389,376,000 total (without vanities). Matt Deres (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A letter position in a license plate should not be assumed to allow 24 different letters. Vehicle licensing authorities generally restrict letters that resemble numbers and letter combinations considered misleading or tasteless. Montana MVD bans a list of 4,212 plates[1], Maryland about 5000[2]. Thus plates such as PEN15, IOI101, OOO123, TITS4U are rarely allowed, or may attract collector interest if they occur. Here is a big list of plates that can't be bought in USA that comes with a warning that it may be offensive and not be suitable for all ages. Blooteuth (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, but taking ~30,000 away from 389 million is less than a percent of a percent. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Australians and Canadians and Americans use the dollar while the British use pounds and pennies?

Americans count their money by dollars and cents. For a fraction of a dollar, that may be represented by coins - penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, and dollar coin. Australians and Canadian also have their own dollar. But British people have 2p and 5p coins and pounds? Why do Canadians and Americans name their coins while Australians and British people give their coins uncreative names? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "creative". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously forgotten the British groat, sovereign, crown, florin, shilling (bob), and tanner. I agree that these modern decimal fractions have less interesting names. Dbfirs 19:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely true to say we don't have names for our modern coins. One pound is very often referred to as a "quid", and increasingly (IMO) a "squid". The 10p coin is sometimes referred to as a "2-bob coin" as this is what it was worth pre-decimalisation. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia wanted a decimal currency and 1000+ submissions were received for the new name. The prime minister wanted the name royal but the name dollar was chosen. Before 1966, Australia used the Australian pound and coins had the standard names: halfpenny, penny, threepence, sixpence, shilling and florin.
Sleigh (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also crown and half crown coins. Interestingly, the Australians went for a dollar equal to 10 shillings, while the UK retained the pound. A maths textbook we used at school which had been printed before the details of decimalisation had been finalised, used "pounds" and "cents". In the end, the new penny (worth 2.4 old pence) was adopted.

Before Decimal Day in the UK in 1971, there were also informal nicknames for coins; "tanner" for a sixpence, "bob" for a shilling and "half dollar" for a half crown. No nicknames for the new coinage seem to have caught on, except that the new halfpenny was known as a "tiddler" (in London at least) before it was withdrawn in 1984 and the 50 pence coin was briefly known as a "ten bob bit" until people began to forget how much ten shillings was. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada also had a Canadian pound until 1858 - see also Canadian dollar and History of the Canada dollar. Why Canada switched to the dollar is a bit complex, but basically comes down to making it easier to trade with the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pennies: The only things that start out 1 day's wages in 211BC and end up 0.004 2017 pounds. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reserves in North America Indigenous peoples

Is there are list of reserves of Aboriginals in Canada and Native-Americans in USA? Donmust90 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Indian reservations? That article has a map, which may help to answer part of your question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada, see List of Indian reserves in Canada and for the USA List of Indian reservations in the United States. --Xuxl (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

national monuments to block mining

In S01E08 of The West Wing, Congress wants to approve a strip mine on a piece of federal land but the president, an environmentalist, disapproves but doesn't have enough votes to block it.

The solution revealed near the end of the episode was that the president could invoke the Antiquities Act to proclaim the said piece of federal land a national park and thus block the mine indirectly (in real life the Antiquities Act gives the president the power to proclaim national monuments instead but the tactic still works).

Has this tactic, or similar such maneuvers, ever been used in real life by a POTUS? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: You'll have perhaps more chance of an answer if you include tate Governers doing this at the State level? The reality of such tactics, in real life, is the destructive "side effect" of encouraging landowners to shoot, shovel, and shut up, lest endangered species be discovered on their land. Destroy the endangered species before they are discovered, lest your land be "locked up". Eliyohub (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National monument declarations by Presidents have definitely been controversial at times. See page 2 of [3] and [4] for some examples which sprung up with a quick google search. Others may have more to add. Eliyohub (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is based directly on Bill Clinton's creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in order to prevent its extensive coal deposits being mined; it was viewed as a payoff to China whose domestic coal industry would suffer due to increased competition with low-priced american coal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been viewed as such by a small far-right-wing fringe, but that's not really the reason behind the creation of the monument except in the minds of some fever-swamp conspiracy theorists. The primary reason was the protection of such a huge swath of largely-undeveloped public land from development incompatible with conservation of the natural landscape and ecosystem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie sanders and Tony Blair equivalents

How many equivalents are there of Senator Bernie Sanders and how many equivalents of Tony Blair are there in the world? Donmust90 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None, unless they have identical twins somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you give the term "equivalent" its proper meaning. But the original question wasn't totoo clear, either. I assume that a "Bernie Sanders equivalent" is a relatively left-wing relatively successful relatively populist politician, while a "Tony Blair equivalent" is a politician with a boyish charm and popular appeal who moves a major political party to a more centrist position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One could portray them both in many other ways, both more positively and more negatively. The question is unanswerable until the OP tells us what his image of these people is.

(Btw, "to clear" is a verb. I think you wanted an adverb-adjective pair, "too clear".) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wanted to use the verb - the question is hard to clear because it is not clear enough. I'd never confuse "to" and "too", not even in peer reviewed papers. Thx ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Bernie Sanders has an identical twin, but he has an older brother Larry Sanders who moved to the UK in the 1960s and has served in some minor offices as a member of the UK Green Party. From what I gather, his politics are similar to Bernie's. Tony Blair might be more like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blair's politics are more closely aligned to Bill Clinton. Compare New Democrats to New Labour. --Jayron 32 11:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok, I thought of Obama's and H. Clinton's policies as similar to Bill Clinton's although maybe I've overlooked some fine points. Sanders is very far to the left of any of those three either way. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion and misclarification. What I mean is that which politicians are considered as Bernie Sanders of this particular nation and as well as which politicians are considered as Tony Blair of this nation. For example, Jeremy Corbyn of Labour Party has been dubbed as British Bernie Sanders, Manuel Valls of Parti Socialiste has been dubbed as Tony Blair of France. Donmust90 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heard of Jean-Luc Mélenchon being described as a French Bernie Sanders in the context of last week's French election round (Mélenchon=Sanders, Macron=Clinton, Le Pen=Trump). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he even campaigned that way, with ads making those equivalences.John Z (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodiest day in history?

Hello. What was the 24 hour period in which the most people died violently in history? Google brings up several battles including Antietam, the first day on the Somme and Cannae, but I am not sure it was any of them. I suspect it was some battle on the Eastern Front during WW2 or something Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.45.110 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Borodino was at least one of the deadliest single day battles and possible the deadliest in history (guessing).--TMCk (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the most violent deaths in a single day was not a battle but a natural disaster. I would suggest the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake with its 800,000 fatalities would be an excellent candidate for deadliest day in history. For war, the ~75,000 that died immediately from the atomic bombing at Hiroshima would be starting point for comparisons. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "died violently" implies intent rather than natural disaster. Of course, it's up to the original poster to clarify what the question is. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, died violently includes drowning, crushed in an earthquake, burnt in a fire and killed in a car crash but not by disease, old age or in childbirth.

So 23 January, 1556.
Sleigh (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of battles by casualties, but it doesn't indicate how long each battle / siege took. Reading the linked articles, should yield this information. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bombing_of_Tokyo killed between 75,000 and 200,000 people in a single overnight raid. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles and other violent events by death toll may be a good place to start. --Jayron 32 12:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is the bloodiest day in the history of Earth. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While that is good and creative answer, I think the number of people (per the original request) that died in that event was fairly low. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate or comprehensive this source is. But it lists 1556 Shaanxi earthquake as one of the deadliest days. And in terms of human violence, it lists Operation Meetinghouse, which took two days, so it's not completely clear how many perished on each day, nor the exact death toll. Eliyohub (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyohub It was a single night, from the dropping of the first bomb to the last last bomb would have been just a few hours at most - more than 80% were dropped within 2 hours. The article is not clear about how long the fire continued after that, but it's pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of casualties were inflicted within 24 hours of the first bomb detonating. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did these MPs resign?

Why did Sidney Schofield resign from Parliament in 1953, and why did Tom Williamson resign in 1948? DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schofield "insisted on resigning his seat because he did not like Westminster".[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not referenced but List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds lists Williamson as "Concentrating on work as General Secretary of the GMWU". MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian female suffrage

I need help to find sources about female suffrage movement in the Territory of Hawaii, who leaders of the movement, particularly native or Asian suffrage leaders rather than the missionary descendants or white upper class. I know a Massachusetts women by the name of Almira Hollander Pitman had some effect on the movement when she visited with her part Hawaiian husband in the 1910s but nothing about the local movement itself.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: According to our article, Almira "Myra" Hollander married Benjamin K. F. Pitman in 1875. Her suffrage involvement is referenced with the following source:

Susan Brownell Anthony; Matilda Joslyn Gage; Ida Husted Harper. History of woman suffrage. Vol. 6. p. 717.

I hope this helps.2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made those edits. I am aware of that source. Looking for additional ones I am not aware of.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Mrs. John W. Dorsett?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very rich lady who lived in Hawaii and a strong supporter of women's suffrage. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a name other than that of her husband. Searching for her husband's name doesn't seem to even bring up anything.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]