Humanities desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 28 >

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.

September 27

Why is there no entry for Chauncey DeVega

He is, after all, "A (Mostly) Respectable Negro." (His words). I depend on you guys to be the internet knowledge base and have supported you financially several times in the past.

Someone jump on this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:210C:46AF:716A:48CB:D7E2:1AA8 (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you jump on it and do some research? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: ignore the previous poster, he's like that with everyone. The page you need is Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Viennese Waltz 07:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to everyone, just the lazy ones. This DeVega is apparently an internet writer. I had found a grand total of 10 mentions of him on Newspapers.com. Good luck finding proper sourcing for a prospective article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being "lazy" to request an article. Would you call everyone who requests an article at WP:RA "lazy"? --Viennese Waltz 14:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many requestors at WP:RA order them to "jump on it"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a bit more of what's going on here, IP user: Wikipedia is created and edited by thousands and thousands of volunteer editors, each of whom works on what they choose, when they choose. The result of your request might be that somebody sees it and says "Yes, he looks interesting: let's go and investigate". If their investigations showed enough independent reliable sources that talked about DeVega, then it might be worth their spending some time on it - if they can't find such sources, they'll know it won't be, because he won't meet Wikpedia's criteria for notability.

But, to be frank, "jump on this", even with a "please", isn't very likely to excite somebody to want to do this work, and that's what Baseball Bugs was pushing back against in his own inimitable way. However, he indicates that he has in fact looked for sources, and does not think that DeVega meets the criteria at the moment, so is not moved to spend any more time on it. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asian characters on the Marine Raider Regiment patch

The Marine Raider Regiment patch, pictured below, seems to contain some sort of characters in the lower right corner. What are these characters and what do they mean?

The top character vaguely looks like the E_(kana) from the Japanese language.

(Sorry about the formatting. I don't know how to make the picture smaller. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia syntax.)Helian James (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted the image. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Helian James (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese article mentions Gung ho (工合) --195.62.160.60 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly it. Thanks! Helian James (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serving AG with lawsuit at home

[1] I thought if you wanted to sue the US or a state government, you named the attorney general in his or her offfical capacity as the defendant, but the actual defendant was the government. Thus Eldred v. Ashcroft was originally called Eldred v. Reno since Reno was Ashcroft's predecessor as US AG. The occupant of the AG office changed, but it was the same bunch of gubmint lawyers defending the suit before and after.

But wouldn't you usually serve the AG's office and wouldn't the office accept the papers pretty much automatically? The link I gave is about someone trying to serve the Texas AG at his residence, and the AG literally running away from the process server. Is that bizarre and whacky, or is it just one of those things that is seen now and then? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:5265 (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documents sought to be served were not a complaint, which initiates a lawsuit, but subpoenas seeking Paxton’s testimony, one in his personal capacity. A judge has ruled that Paxton does not have to appear at the hearing. John M Baker (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titles Deprivation Act 1917

Can any of the peerage removed in the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 be used again or recreated for another individual while a claimant to the deprived peerage remains living? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely, because the act allows for successors of the original peer to petition for a restoration. Giving the title to another person would therefore cause a conflict. It shall be lawful for the successor of any peer whose name has been so removed, to present a petition to His Majesty praying to have the peerage restored. However, two of those titles are now extinct, and might therefore be eligible for recreation. Per Hereditary_peer#Inheritance_of_peerages, A title becomes extinct when all possible heirs (as provided by the letters patent) have died out.... A title becomes dormant if nobody has claimed the title, or if no claim has been satisfactorily proven. A title goes into abeyance if there is more than one person equally entitled to be the holder.70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Taaffe viscountcy is extinct; which other? I have heard that some people consider one of the dukedoms extinct because one of its holders married contrary to the Royal Marriages Act, making his children illegitimate in British law. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page break

banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In yesterday's Daily Mirror the page numbering goes:

...21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 23, 32, 33 etc., so there is no page 31. How could this happen? 92.21.192.65 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to think it wasn't simply a typo? Page numbers are typically done automatically, but manual over-rides get done for any number of reasons. Matt Deres (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were page 23 and page 23 the same? DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids and the pulley

Is it true that the ancient Egyptians built the great pyramids without knowing about the pulley. 2A02:908:424:9D60:D74:DCBE:B4B9:330E (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Pulley says that The earliest evidence of pulleys dates back to Ancient Egypt in the Twelfth Dynasty (1991-1802 BCE), with a citation to a book of 1991, which is reasonably recent, though there could have been later research.

Our article Egyptian pyramids says that By the end of the 6th Dynasty, pyramid building had largely ended and it was not until the Middle Kingdom that large pyramids were built again, though instead of stone, mudbrick was the main construction material.

So it would appear that the well-known stone pyramids were built at a time when, as far as we know, there were no pulleys. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence they knew about it. As far as I know, there is also no direct evidence that the Egyptians did not know about the potential of pulleys. The lack of positive evidence may be because the ancient Egyptians indeed were unaware of the possibility, but it may also be because any historical record of the use of pulleys has disappeared in the intervening forty-five centuries. Or, perhaps, the engineers supervising the construction were aware of the idea but could not make it work in practice. Remaining fragments related to the construction, such as the Diary of Merer, give no indication of the technology used in the construction. --Lambiam 23:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if ropes and pulley wheels could have been made strong enough, a simple pulley only translates direction of force and needs to be secured somehow. If the pulley is attached to the stone slab, the mechanical advantage is only 2:1. Ramps, wedges and levers give a greater mechanical advantage, are safer, cheaper, stronger and easier to implement. Doug butler (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can increase the advantage by using pulley blocks with multiple sheaves. Whether the Egyptians knew that is another issue. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]