Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 August 17

= August 17 =

Military history
Why does it seem that majority of people and mainstream history documentaries are obsessed with military history? Has there been any scholarly opinion on this or an article speaking about the popularity of military history over other genre of history like art history or religious history. 107.193.163.81 (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the basis of your premise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See plurium interrogationum and confirmation bias. The first problem with your question is that it presupposes a given which has not yet been established.  We cannot answer a question meaningfully if it is based on a premise which has not itself yet been established as meaningfully true.  That is, you've not first established that a "majority of people and mainstream history documentaries are obsessed with military history", which means that we can't tell you why that is since we don't even know that it is true.  It's an as-yet-unanswered question.  On the second point, that of confirmation bias, when you believe a concept to be true, you will fit your evidence to maintain your pre-existing belief.  Since you believe that a "majority of people and mainstream history documentaries are obsessed with military history", that's why it seems to be so.  The key word here is seem.  Things seem based on processes inside your mind, with no necessary connection to reality.  -- Jayron 32 11:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I found The Role of Military History in the Contemporary Academy published by the Society for Military History, for one side of the argument. Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And for the other side, I looked up the most popular history documentaries at IMDb. Didn’t see a military history film until #36. Another TV channel took a viewer survey where people voted for greatest documentaries. Not all of these are history, but there’s the same paucity of military history among those that are. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A thesis called MODERN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE TEACHING OF MILITARY HISTORY says: "A significant segment of the population at large recognizes the importance of this [military] history, as evidenced by book sales and cable television viewership of popular accounts of precisely this kind of military history. However, academia has gone in a different direction. Military history courses are disappearing from college campuses, despite their popularity, and the coverage of military history as part of the high school history survey courses seems similarly to be dying on the vine". Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Vasily II of Moscow and the Byzantines
Did Vasily II of Moscow have any diplomatic relationship with the Byzantine Empire? His reign coincided with the Fall of Constantinople. I am aware of Sophia Palaiologina and Ivan III which is not what I am referring to. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a direct answer, but the Russian Church cut off its relationship with Constantinople during his reign. See Laetentur Caeli — the collapsing diplomatic situation led the Emperor to promote a union with the West in the late 1440s, which was designed to attract military aid against the Turks, and the Russians (along with most other Orthodox churches not under imperial government) fiercely rejected the action of the Constantinople Patriarchate.  Isidore of Kiev, the Patriarch of all Rus', was deposed from the patriarchate and imprisoned on the grounds that his advocacy of the union and adherence to Rome amounted to apostacy.  Such a strong reaction would have diplomatic ramifications, to say the least.  Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Medieval Russia, 980-1584 (p. 283) by Janet Martin continues the narrative; "But the selection of the new metropolitan [to succeed Isidore] posed a dilemma. Normally, the appointment of a new metropolitan required the approval of Byzantine officials and investiture by them. Yet the Byzantine patriarch and emperor had espoused union with Rome, which the Russian church had rejected. Although the Russians stopped short of formally breaking their ties with Constantinople or denouncing its leaders, they were loathe to allow that "heretical" leadership to appoint their metropolitan. The Russian bishops therefore, in full accordance with the wishes of Vasily II, took it upon themselves in December 1448 to name Iona of Riazan head of the Russian Orthodox Church". Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note that our "Vasily II of Moscow" article has the 1448 patriarchal appointment happening after the Fall of Constantinople, which as every schoolboy knows, was on 29 May 1453. There are no refs at all and the whole thing needs a good sorting out. Alansplodge (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * wp:deny
 * They were in a bit of a cleft stick. In order to get help from western Christians, the Byzantines needed to address the East–West Schism. In attempting to do so, they alienated their supporters in the east. There was some limited help from the west, financial contributions from as far away as England and a Genoese corps led by Giovanni Giustiniani, but a fleet sent from Venice was too late. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This raises the question, was there a Byzantine appeal for Russian aid during the attacks on Constantinople like they asked of the Latin West? Are there sources of this request for aid ever being received or rejected by the Russians? KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * According to The End of Byzantium by Jonathan Harris, an embassy was sent to the Russians during the Ottoman siege of 1400-1402 (Wikipedia does not have an article on everything) appealing for aid to Vasily I of Moscow, but little was forthcoming because the Russians were preoccupied with the Golden Horde. It was then that the Byzantines started to look to the west. Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

what exactly constitutes a breach of academic integrity?
so my friend is a nurse in Kaplan's MCAT program and Kaplan promises his money ($2000) back if he doesn't get a significant improvement on his diagnostic score. Around 7-8 Fridays nights ago with him I took his Kaplan diagnostic half-length test for the MCAT just for fun (I was also quite drunk) and he got a 514. (I did a little better on the real test in real life.) That means now he's guaranteed a 515 or higher or his money back. Would this be considered breach of academic integrity? I mean, Kaplan's diagnostic test is not the real test right? I would never do this for the real test. 108.6.196.24 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We cannot offer the kind of advice you need; please contact the right office at the college for this question. If you're not sure what the best office is, we can try to help you with that.  Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like an academic issue per se. It's more of a (maybe unintentionally) shady business move, in the event that you think he would have scored lower if he took the diagnostic test himself while sober, and he ends up scoring lower when he takes the MCAT for real. If the first of those is true, Kaplan now has a higher hurdle to cross before they can collect money from him, and if the second occurs then they don't collect.

514 is a 91st percentile MCAT score according to the article, not bad. But if your friend spent $2000 on the Kaplan course, hopefully he is motivated to study hard so he can beat that score. Assuming he does, your dilemma goes away. Or maybe he should just take the diagnostic test again (if that's possible) since the study materials might be tailored to how he did on it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)