Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 7

= September 7 =

Help me
Jmoore19- How do I request to split a sub article from an original article? I would like Stickball (Native American) to have its own page separate from the History of Lacrosse because stickball is the traditional version of the game and still played among many tribes. I also have some more modern day contributions to add to the article. --jmoore19 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Jmoore19--jmoore19 03:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoore19 (talk • contribs)
 * There are a few ways you could do this. You can list it at Requested articles (I've done this for you). You could be bold and do it yourself, ideally following the process at Splitting. Finally, you could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. There you're most likely to find editors with subject-area expertise who could work on this sort of thing (or alternatively WikiProject Sports). You could also work on a draft in your userspace, such as User:Jmoore19/Stickball (Native American). Good luck, and let us know if we can help further. --BDD (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Name that book
I'm trying to help an acquaintance identify the author of a novel that she believes was published within the last few years. It's set in either Victorian or Regency England, and she remembers that the author researched the language of the time to ensure she (so presumably a female author) wouldn't use any anachronisms. The acquaintance thinks she read about this book on BoingBoing or Neatorama, though I haven't had any luck finding reference to such a thing on either site. --BDD (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It could be plenty of authors, but I wonder whether you're referring to Mary Robinette Kowal? This article discusses her method of avoiding Regency anachronisms for her second novel. -  Ka renjc 10:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the one! Thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What type of fallacy is this?
One fallacy that I notice on occasion is the perfect solution fallacy, where a solution to a problem is rejected because it isn't perfect. Somewhat related to that is the acceptance of a proposed solution on the grounds that it is "better than nothing." In other words, an action is good because it is to not do nothing (e.g. police arrest one thief, then say they need not arrest any more thieves, and therefore the action of arresting one thief is equivalent to anything else beyond that, all the way to the "perfect solution"). What is the name of that fallacy? Thank you in advance. Vidtharr (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See the perfect is the enemy of good. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see Yes Minister where this appears more than once: "...the Politicians' Syllogism: Step One: We must do something. Step Two: This is something. Step Three: Therefore we must do this. Logically, this akin to other equally famous syllogisms, such as: Step One: All dogs have four legs. Step Two: My cat has four legs. Step Three: Therefore my dog is a cat. The Politicians' Syllogism has been responsible for many of the disasters that befell the United Kingdom in the twentieth century, including the Munich Agreement and the Suez Adventure." (Yes Prime Minister II, pp. 130-1). One could comment that certain of today's politicians should heed this advice, but that might be interpreted as soapboxing.TrohannyEoin (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The second fallacy in that extract is undistributed middle, incidentally, but it doesn't really cover the OP's example. Tevildo (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Broadly related is the aphorism "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail", which probably has a formal name if I could but think of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Law of the instrument, per Abraham Maslow. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Deborahjay. You nailed it! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)