Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 September 24

= September 24 =

Request for 17th century painting
Hi folks, I hope I've come to the right place to ask my question. The article Battle of Höchst mentions (unsourced) that the painter Peter Snayers made a painting of that battle. I'd like to use that painting to illustrate the article. I googled Snayers and Höchst and found nothing. So I hoped someone with more experience in this than me could perhaps look it up in some online catalog and verify its existence. Perhaps even the museum where it hangs today could be identified, and, if I'm lucky, their webpage might already have a photograph online that we could use. If this is not the right place for such a request, please tell me where I should ask. Nice day. 2.247.242.240 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That blurb was added 9 years ago, by an editor who last edited in 2011. They supposedly got it from the German Wikipedia. Maybe someone there will know something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I followed that lead and traced the info to an edit from 2006, only to find that the editor's account has been deactived for several years now. Anyhow, there was this little additional detail: "a monumental painting hanging in a Brussels museum". Should I ask/look somewhere else or bury the idea? 2.247.241.15 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have time, you could try contacting either http://www.kmkg-mrah.be/fr/collections-0  or https://historia-europa.ep.eu/en  --Lgriot (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I find this book, which seems to be the source for the statement in the German article, almost verbatim. Interestingly, it says "in the museum in Brussels", not "in a museum...". This book also mentions a representation of the battle of Hoechst, as well as this article from Die Gartenlaube. Getting closer: The Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium has several paintings by Snayers, among them "The battle of Thionville", formerly titled "The battle of Hoechst"! There's another example a painting that was retitled, so there seems to have been an issue with identifying the battles that were depicted. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Good digging, Wrongfilter. Looks like a historical misattribution by the museum people that has even made its way into literature and only got fixed recently. Interesting. I assume that Snayers' Höchst painting never existed in the first place. Will erase the claim from Battle of Höchst and mention Wrongfilter's findings on the talk page. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, if one of you cares you might want to delete the other misattributed painting from Commons, to avoid future confusion. It has already been superseded by a copy under the correct title. I assume I can't do that, as I have no account. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominated it for deletion myself. Cool, didn't know you could do that anonymously. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another misattribution by museum people - this miniature c:File:Maome.jpg was uploaded under edit summary http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/images/3/0_01.jpg.  It is in the catalogue as Le prophète Muhammad interdit l'intercalation d'une mois supplémentaire dans l'année lunaire (The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year),  (page 37).   That was done in the open (the picture is of a man preaching in a mosque to a congregation of six) and the Prophet was addressing thousands of pilgrims while seated on his camel.   The misattribution has found its way into a number of Wikipedia articles and from there into the wider world, to the great distress of billions of Muslims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.29.160 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 78.145.29.160, I truly have no idea who you are and why you have posted this here, but if you are so greatly distressed why don't you go and are bold about this, instead of preaching here? What do you hope to achieve, besides making a mockery of my attempt to demonstrate that IP users can behave responsibly and be an asset to WP? ;) 2.247.240.90 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you know a way of removing this Islamic calendar please let me in on the secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.29.160 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure: per wp:BRD you would erase what you deem wrong and ideally state your reasons on the article's talk page. Then I would probably revert it und quote the Holy Qur'an, sura At-Tawba as a source. And jokingly ask you if you would doubt that source (and thus commit shirk). (No offense to your religious feelings intended.) Then you could reply and we would discuss the matter until there is wp:consensus for your point of view or your change gets discarded. Good luck :) 2.247.240.90 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really knowledgeable in Islamic doctrine. Is this perchance a matter of Shia vs Sunni viewpoints of legendary events in early Islamic history? If your viewpoint is shared by many and people (preferably scholars) have written books about it, then you have a good chance of getting your view represented in the article. You just need to argue in that direction ("Millions believe this in Iran...") and quote a reliable source or two to verify your point. Then the changed article could have a paragraph about the Sunni view and one about the Shia view. Just don't insist that only you are right. That wouldn't be very productive. 2.247.240.90 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no controversy about what happened during the Farewell Sermon.  The article you link to says "This prohibition was repeated by Muhammad during the Farewell Sermon on Mount Arafat, which was delivered during the Farewell Pilgrimage to Mecca on 9 Dhu al-Hijjah AH 10 (my emphasis).   I would change "Muhammad prohibiting Nasī’" to "An Imam preaching in a mosque."   All I need now is for you to explain to me how to do it. 78.145.29.160 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that this image comes from a 700-year old treatise and occurs on the very page talking about Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. We have also a copy of the full page with text: File:Mohamed Ramaḍān ibn Muḥammad al-Zǎʾiraǧī.jpg. Rmhermen (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that we are having this exchange here alone shows that there seems to be controversy. The file history mentions that there were moves to delete it on the grounds that any depiction of the prophet is felt to be offensive by some. I don't want to delve into the sources too deeply, but your angle of "This doesn't show Mohammed at all" seems to contradict the classical interpretation of al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (Edinburgh codex) by western scholars who have published about the codex.
 * Have a look, for example, at this mini-article on the picture from the Bibliotheque Francaise. They call it "The Prophet Mohammed", ascibe it to al-Biruni's chapter on interlocation and don't mention any conflict in attributing the picture. My guess is that you'll have a hard time proving your point against what seems to be consensus by the (small) community of historians knowledgeable in the area.
 * A sensible start for you would be to start a discussion here on the File's talk page. Try to prove your view (using reliable sources) and achieve consensus. When everybody agrees there should be no problem in renaming the file. Again, good luck. 2.247.243.158 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thought that might get you on a new track: Al-Tawba is said to have been revealed in AH 8, while the Farewell Sermon was delivered in AH 10. Who says that al-Biruni's picture doesn't depict the fist revelation in AH 8, or (less probable) a teaching session in the two years in between? You seem fixed in your approach that the pic is meant to show the Farewell Sermon, and errs in doing so. I see no reason for this. 2.247.243.158 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have this the wrong way round.  I said the picture couldn't be the Farewell Sermon because Muhammad was sitting on his camel when he delivered it.   Prohibiting intercalation is not something you would do in a discussion in a mosque.   That would be the equivalent of the Queen delivering the Queen's Speech opening the new session of parliament from a bus shelter outside the Palace of Westminster.   Think about it - Islam was widespread and communications were poor.   If you prohibited intercalation during a sermon attended by six people there would be chaos.   It had to be done during the pilgrimage when everyone was gathered together and the news could be transmitted back.   Anyway, there was an intercalation in the spring of AD 631 so Muhammad didn't ban the practice immediately.   The picture may be 700 years old but the book is 1,000 years old - the illustrations are nothing to do with the text.   A shi'ite ruler wanted some pretty pictures illustrating different aspects of shi'ism in his copy of the book and he commissioned an artist to paint them.   Your link is to the Bibliothèque nationale de France - the same people who synthesised the link to the prohibition of intercalation.   As there's no record of this being done other than at the Farewell Pilgrimage your suggestion that it was done in a mosque is not so much original research as unsourced speculation and not something we can use in Wikipedia.   You cite The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries.   That doesn't suggest that anybody other than the Bibliothèque nationale de France made the connection.   Do we now have consensus that the caption is wrong?   If so we can move on to discussing what to replace it with. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * dictionary.com has "consensus" as "1. majority of opinion" and "2. general agreement or concord; harmony." I don't see that here. This whole discussion should be moved to c:File_talk:Maome.jpg, by the way.
 * Your arguing chain is based on "It had to be done during the pilgrimage..." and the logic you base that on, which sounds to me like your own personal reasoning. Until you present reliable sources backing this up, I'd call wp:or. 2.247.241.111 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * New discussion opened here on the relevant talk page, please continue posting there. 2.247.241.111 (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

After pasting all this, I'd like to conclude with my current opinion regarding the question of misattribution. 78.145.21.69 said it himself: The book is 1000 years old and this picture is 700 years old. When asking ourselves what it shows, I find it sensible to first look at its context.

It is used to illustrate an ornate version of an old text. It is placed next to al-Biruni's chapter on interlocation. The picture shows a teaching or revelation-like situation. It seems logical to assume that the matter that is elaborated on by the speaking person in the picture has to do with the text it has been placed next to. Would it make much sense to show someone else but the prophet teaching on interlocation? I don't think so. The prophet spoke about it in sura al-Tawba and at the farewell sermon. Muslims are quite good at accepting his words as final.

Unless the original illustrator was on hashish, I have no reason to doubt that he tried to depict the prophet in this picture from the Edinburgh codex. 2.247.241.111 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you did this.  It's highly unlikely there will be any input from an obscure Commons talk page which has not been edited for six years.   In any event, it's the wrong venue.   The file description at Commons is Mohammed vor seinen frühesten Anhängern.   Running that through Google translate I get "Muhammed before his earliest followers".   Nothing about prohibiting intercalation.   The reference to prohibition comes from en:wp and should be discussed here.   We do have an essay on this very topic User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historical portraits.   Relevant extracts:

"In this situation, editors often resort to non-contemporary, imaginary depictions instead. This essay argues that while such illustrations may sometimes serve a legitimate purpose, their use is more often unencyclopedic, useless and even harmful."

"Never include an image merely for the sake of not leaving the infobox empty. A Wikipedia article can live quite well without a colourful spot in the top right corner, and if there's nothing legitimate and encyclopedically useful to illustrate, then don't pretend otherwise."

The German version of this says (in translation):


 * The illustration of an article should always serve the better understanding of the text, never alone the adornment.
 * One criterion for proper illustration is: Can you refer to the image in the text and write something useful about it?
 * Also should be dispensed with images that illustrate an article only symbolic or associative.
 * The picture shows as many central identity-creating characteristics of the facts as possible in an exemplary way.  These are characteristics that the subject of the article essentially are and it clearly from all similar objects differ.
 * The picture shows at least one central feature in which the depicted facts clearly differ from all similar situations.  A confusion with similar facts is excluded.   The picture leaves no serious doubt that it really represents the fact that it is, according to the signature.   (The author's assurance is not enough).

The author did not claim that he had painted a miniature of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. As Codename Lisa put it in the RfC (12:26, 28 January 2015):

"... I don't know which one is Muhammad and I don't see the act of forbidding."

At 02:28, 30 January she added:

(break for prayer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.21.69 (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"If the image was an image of the real Muhammad (peace be upon him) as opposed to an artistic image, I might have said something different."

173.53.57.63 commented (22:47, 30 January):

"Where in the image is the act of prohibiting? Where are the nasī’?   If these things are not obvious and the source is not considered to be reliable, the image cannot be pertinent."

Wiqi55 commented (20:29, 31 January):

"According to Hillenbrand, 'three of the five Muhammad images in the Biruni manuscript are already permeated by strong sectarian feeling. Thus the polemical potential of such subject matter is there right at the beginning of religious painting in Islam: proof, if any were needed, that it was a sound instinct which had steered earlier painters away from such themes.' (Persian Painting, 2001, p. 135). Unless we're making a point about sectarianism or propaganda in art, I don't see the point of having this image in this article."

And again (13:55, 3 February): "Well, it was clear enough that you misrepresented Hillenbrand. He actually noticed a 'strong sectarian feeling' in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama)."

There are 25 pictures in the book. If you cannot demonstrate that each of these 25 pictures illustrates some aspect of the text surrounding it, per WP:SYNTH you cannot argue from the text. As was remarked at the RfC:

"It would be instructive to know what was being discussed at the point where each of the 24 pictures were inserted in the text. Did Al-Biruni really discuss sodomy in a treatise on timekeeping?"

The essay is referred to in these comments:

If we look at the sources, we will see why Future Perfect at Sunrise has recently drawn editors' attention to the deficiencies of their approach. See his comments in the RfC relating to the captioning of the Byzantine flag picture at Mount Athos and these observations made this week:

- Future Perfect at Sunrise 08:12, 25 February 2018

- Future Perfect at Sunrise 11:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.21.69 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2018‎
 * Persistent troll detected. Sorry for taking him seriously and trying to be helpful for so long. Started wp:ani request. 2.247.240.207 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament
In the case of R v Haddock reported as "Is it a Free Country?" in Herbert, 1935, we read the words of Lord Light, LCJ "People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament". Does this still hold true today? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You realize that is fiction, right? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Herbert used humour to make serious points about the law. I was trying to ask the question in a way that was, however inadequately, reminiscent of his work. I'm sorry you didn't get the joke. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bhutan officially has an index of Gross National Happiness. I would assume that having a bit of fun is part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a net national happiness? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This search on the British parliamentary web site finds no laws containing the word "fun". However, while the site includes some laws from before the modern computer era, it does not include all of them. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the preferred official term is "recreational".--Shantavira|feed me 08:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about having the law require us to have fun. That sounds a bit too much like in Flash Gordon 'All creatures will make merry. Under pain of death' Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Here in the US, we hold that the “pursuit of happiness” is an inalienable right... however, the achievement of happiness is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah the Declaration, where all men are created equal and slavery was legal the next 89.5 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And where King Georgie Porgie is told how things are gonna be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like that part. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of Parliament banning fun, back in 1644: --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

More specifically,, the word "fun" appears at least once in 14 Acts of Parliament. However, in the earliest of these (dated 1989), which deals with hovercraft, it seems to be a typo for "fan". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What are those Acts and where did you find the figure? DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I forgot the link! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one of those is an Act of Parliament. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 46 public Acts of Parliament were passed in 1989.  None of them mentions hovercraft.   I've never seen a "typo" in an Act of Parliament, and I've been studying them for years. 86.131.233.235 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not studied any govt documentation more recent than 1400, so I have no expertise at all. The typo is on this page:, in "Table 4". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently statutory instruments are not proofread as rigorously as Acts.  The word "fun" is supposed to appear in the first yellow highlighted section in the list but I don't see it there. 86.131.233.235 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And two words on it talks about "the gratest shaft h.p." 86.131.233.235 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's right there in Table 4: "Fee per shaft h.p. of the type of engine, propeller or fun having the gratest shaft h.p. of a type of engine propeller or fan for which approval is applied for and granted" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that.  What I was referring to was the first cited order "The Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007".   Where does the word "fun" appear in that? 86.131.233.235 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just had a look and yes fun does appear there under physical education "participate in fun activities and physical challenges..." and "practise simple running techniques in a variety of fun activities;". I'm impressed. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Govt documents were definitely less fun in the late 13th / early 14th century. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The next instrument is The National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations.  The word "fun" is flagged as appearing in s.2 "Amendment of Regulations".   It doesn't.   In fact it doesn't appear anywhere in the instrument, although the word "sun" does appear in s.2 (many times). 86.131.233.235 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does - "Natural Flow Animal Fun Children’s Chewable Tablets". DuncanHill (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I scrutinised the eighth instrument, The National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, Schedule 10, line by line, but while the word "sun" appears a few times, the word "fun" appears not at all.  I had to check the last on the list, The Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006, s.32, and I didn't find any fun there either. 86.131.233.235 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the Scotland one, see here. In the CTB regs it appears as a misprint for fund. see here. Please stop saying that a word Doesn't appear in something when in fact it does. You are just wasting our time. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know, Are those typos literally erroneous re-typing from some document, or are they from erroneous machine-scanning of a document? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the CTB regulations, but what's the full name of the medicine it forms part of the title of in the Scottish ones? 86.131.233.235 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Natural Flow Animal Fun Children’s Chewable Tablets" again. I'm somewhat with DuncanHill here. I don't understand what's the purpose of this 'it's not there' when that seems to always be wrong. I mean if you want help locating where something is, at least ask for that rather than claiming something which isn't true. And actually I don't understand why there's need for that or for that matter, what there's need to scrutinise anything. Just open the whole text e.g. via the "Open whole Instrument" option under "opening options" and search for fun. Manually searching for the word seems a dumb waste of time, even mobile browsers nowadays can nearly always do text searches (although I admit I'm not sure if you can always open the whole text easily on a mobile browser)  Frankly if yours can't, unless you're forced to use some weird device or you have major accessibility challenges, the solution would seem to be get a better browser rather than manually looking for the word fun. Simple searches like this are after all one key advantage of the documents being digital.  Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the CTB error only occurs in the online variant. It seems to be correct in the print PDF which I think is equivalent to the actual official regulations. Page 40 or 8.1766 (–8.1772) is where it should occur. Although this is from 2014 I guess some manual processing was involved given the conversion of the arrows etc. I.  Anyway as further proof it's trivial, here are the ones not already discussed  Schedule 7 number 4:  I'm guessing those are supposed to be separated in some way, probably as a list one per line like the later ones with fun fair. Again not that surprising since it's from 1992.   under Schedule/section 2, Rum Story,   and  under schedule 3 number 4  All the other ones have either already been discussed or are the now famous Natural Flow Animal Fun Children’s Chewable Tablets. So only two don't really have 'fun' i.e. the CTB where it's a typo for fund and The Hovercraft (Fees) Regulations 1989 where it's a typo for fan. I've already mentioned the CTB one is just an online site error. The Hovercraft one given the date is probably simply a transcription or OCR error.  Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, although both of the typos we came across are not likely part of the actual regulations but simply the online HTML version, typos obviously do occur. E.g. I saw this correction slip while looking in to this . Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So as I thought, there's never been a "typo" in an official copy of an Act or instrument prepared by the Queen's printer, but worse things have happened:,.

See this disclaimer:

Typos

The text on this site has been generated from physical volumes of Hansard by automatically converting scanned pages into text. Although generally the quality of text produced is very high, some incorrectly converted words do remain, particularly in the older text. At the moment, we do not have the resources to fix individual mistakes. However, if you find other problems with the text, do please let us know.

Mistakes are dealt with by the preparation of a fresh instrument. 86.131.233.235 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)