Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 July 24

= July 24 =

Czech Republic
Why doesn't Wikipedia rename Czech Republic into Czechia since it's its official name since 2016? Google did it on Google maps already. Thanks. Ericdec~enwiki (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow, this common sense move has been postponed. No idea why, except the obvious: the vote to do that failed. Democracy doesn't always work. Anyway, the place to discuss the matter is Talk:Czech_Republic Gem fr (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First, Czechia isn't the country's official name; it's its official short name. The long name is still official.  Second, Wikipedia policy, roughly speaking, is to use the name that people are mostly familiar with.  Most people in the vote that Gem mentioned said that currently "Czech Republic" is still more common in reference material than Czechia is, so it meets that requirement&mdash;unlike the case of France where the short name, and not the official name "French Republic", is almost always used.  So if this is still correct&mdash;and I don't know that myself, either way&mdash;then Czech Republic is the appropriate name of the article.  --69.159.11.113 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "the name that people are mostly familiar with" is not quite right. The aim per policy is more like "most commonly used in english-language sources". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is just because Wikipedia fucked up. France and Republique Francaise (Germany and German Federal Republic, China and People's Republic of China: any country, you name it) are 2 different things (the first thousands years of age, the second only a few decades), each deserving a separate article. Who in his same mind would merge President of the United States and Donald Trump? Well, it is just that currently done about countries... Gem fr (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We have Greater China and China proper, but redirecting "France" or "Germany" to comparable articles would just encourage Wikipedia irredentism and disputes over history... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, this may well be perceived as a problem about entities like China, Germany, Italy or Greece, but this problem doesn't really affect Czechia – there never really was a cultural–geographical area called "Czechia" before the present state. The area was called Bohemia before that. (For France, it's not really a problem either, because the current instantiation of the French state is the direct legal continuation of earlier states that go back all the way to the Frankish kingdom of the early middle ages, just with different political systems of government, i.e. "France" as a state has existed for as long as "France" as a cultural-geographical concept has.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article mention that Czechia (in latin) is 400 years old Gem fr (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As we are not writing in Latin, that fact is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Distinct individuals holding a particular office are not analogous to different governmental forms ruling over the same territory and people. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you, or anyone, think it's worth the effort, nothing prevents you from starting a new Requested moves discussion at the talkpage. There was a moratorium, but it expired. And Czech Republic has its supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And Czech Republic has its supporters. No. Just no. It is the Czech gov itself which is insisting we should colloquially use Czechia, the fact that a gov site use a gov name, as all gov do, is just irrelevant (uneless, again, you insist renaming France or Germany into their respective official political name?)Gem fr (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would somebody please explain to me why anyone in the Czech Republic cares what we call them? I just can't wrap my head around this concept. I neither know nor care what most languages call my country or any other. If I am not speaking those languages it seems totally irrelevant to me and if I am speaking them it seems of no more importance than what words they use for "rock" or "dog" or "red" or "happy". As an article that User:Gem fr quoted elsewhere says "most Czechs probably don't care that much what English speakers call their country, as long as we don’t come up with an insulting name." --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is what the commonly used name is in English. Whichever that is, Wikipedia should use. Using Wikipedia to try to enforce someone's idea of the "right" name is not how Wikipedia does things. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Let say that the "right" Wikipedian way to do things is to follow sources. When sources contradict, we will de facto enforce the best sources idea of the right name. Too bad if available sources are fucked up. Anyway, as I already said, the place to discuss the matter is Talk:Czech_Republic Gem fr (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha -- I don't know how Czechs feel about this, but in general Exonyms can be a sensitive issue. At one point, the PRC government stopped accepting or delivering mail addressed to "Red China" or "Mainland China", and since 1930, the Turkish government has insisted on "Istanbul" for the name of its largest city... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also try telling a proud Scot from Scotland that they're from England and see how well that works for you..... For that matter, see how well insisting you're in that Yankee country or Yankee-land when in the southern US works out for you. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Saying that other countries have objected to exonyms doesn't explain why they have objected. 2) As the Scotland and Yankee examples are not dealing with names in other languages, I don't see how they are relevant here (aside from several other problems with those two examples). --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can be, but mostly not as far as I am aware. I've never seen anyone complain that we call Deutschland "Germany", or Italia "Italy", or pronounce France as "Fraance" rather than "Fronce".  Nor have I seen anyone complaining that the French call England "Angleterre" (although I have seen Scots complain if Britain is called Angleterre, but that's a different issue).  Iapetus (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are talking about the short name of the country. Nobody in Germany would complain that you use "Germany" in English but they might complain if you would call it "German Republic" instead of Germany. Calling Czechia "Czech Republic" makes no sense, in any language. Ericdec~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course they'd complain about being called the "German Republic", it's actually the "Federal Republic of Germany". And it makes perfect sense to say the "Czech Republic" in English, for the very simple reason that that's what we call it. The fact that it is not a common practice to call all countries by their long, formal names is irrelevant. English doesn't follow a simple rule like "always use the short form name of countries except in very formal contexts". --Khajidha (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably the Czechs' sensitivities are not so much about what people call them in English, but what their big next-door neighbours call them in German. When Czechoslovakia split up, there was a likelihood that German would revert to "die Tschechei", analogously to "die Tschechoslowakei". Ethnic country names in -ei are a productive though rare pattern in German (Türkei, Slowakei, Mongolei, Wallachei), but the specific form Tschechei was felt to be associated with Nazi occupation and had a negative vibe to it. Maybe that's why they initially insisted on long forms equivalent to "Czech Republic" internationally. When the Germans revived the alternative form Tschechien, which had no such negative connotations, it all got more relaxed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Warfare state
Since warfare state redirects to militarism, I get no factual definition of the warfare state. What is a warfare state? (There is a word of e. g. liberal warfare state.) Is warfare state the same as militarist state? Thank you. Cabana (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly have never heard the term before. I ran a Google search for it. I guess there are a few publications with "warfare state" in the title, but at least one of them seems to be simply formed by analogy to "welfare state" (i.e., it's more of a play on words for a clever title). There are only 145 ghits doing a proper search engine test (i.e., searching for the term in quotes and going to the last page). I get the feeling it probably shouldn't be a redirect there at all. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have in mind the term warfare state, as it is in use in this article or in this article. Though there are also several other hits in Google search, e.g. this one.Cabana (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw those. As I said, there are a total of 145 ghits for that term and all of them appear to be clever turns of phrase derived by analogy to "welfare state". It probably shouldn't even be a redirect. It seems to be a term with no fixed meaning. Your first article defines it as synonymous to "national security state". The second article is less clear, whether it's a state constantly preparing for war, or a state that's simply "less free". And your third hit, a book review, pretty clearly points out the derivation by analogy from "welfare state". —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're talking turns of phrase, it's an anagram for "seawater fart", "wet fart areas", "after star awe" and "a raft are west". Sounds like Southern California to me. Maybe a post-crisis coastal Nevada. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're talking Long Beach we might be on to a "wharfage state" as well. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hollywood is still the world leader in whorefare. Maybe not per capita, but in reported earnings. I've heard San Francisco and San Diego know a thing or two about taking in boatloads of seamen en masse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ho! So Thoth-ollywood is still a major deity? I am shocked! xD Gem fr (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cabana -- you can consult Report from Iron Mountain and Chapter 3 ("War is Peace") of Goldstein's Book. There's also War is a Racket, written by a highly-decorated U.S. Marine Corps general. We also seem to have an article Perpetual war, which could be a better redirect... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Just listening to Sabaton's new album, which opens with "Future of Warfare", which begins with a reference to the Battle of Flers-Courcelette. Probably nothing, but beats anagrams. Go Canada! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your suggestions. What about warfare state vs. militarist state? Are these two terms similar enough to be interchangeable?
 * There'll always be a better word or phrase for each job, but yeah, these seem basically synonymous to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The more common locution, used by both right and left is welfare-warfare state (or less common warfare-welfare state), due to Murray Rothbard I believe.John Z (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Cabana (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Iran / North Korea
I was hoping some one would provide me with a short synopsis of the relations between North Korea and Iran and also answer some of the following questions. The basis for my query is that it would appear to me that Iran having had sanctions etc for some time now, has recently started to stand up to the international community in a more tangible way (agreed? see recent oil tanker debacle) than before indicating to me that they may now have produced weapon grade Uranium (Plutonium and the like)? However, as explained by Amin Tarzi in his lecture: Iranian Grand Strategy under the Ayatollahs, Iran may have nuclear weapons but they have no way to deliver these. Now, in the news today, there is an article, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/analysis-north-korea-just-revealed-one-of-its-most-potentially-dangerous-weapons-yet/ar-AAEN5za?ocid=spartandhp which relates to North Korea having developed a Nuclear Submarine. Yet, the world remains quietly confident that North Korea don't have nuclear capabilities, yet. (agreed?) So, what is their relationship to each other as they both have grand aspirations, one has nukes and the other has the delivery system. If they were to work together, could they not be a viable force to be reckoned with rather than a fly in the ointment, a modicum of annoyance, in international affairs? Is this hypothesis ridiculous, or does it carry some weight. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Iran–North Korea relations may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, so what is the international community doing to avert any potential collaboration? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The usual: Economic sanctions, and threats of obliteration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a citation 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Anton
 * For what? Trump's frequent comments on Iran and NK? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Iran-North Korea Relationship Reflects Failed US Policies (April 2019). Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the OP needs to read much simpler articles first. For example, they said "". Actually North Korea has had nuclear weapons since 2006 or 2009. The world remains loudly confident of this since North Korea conducted their first not very successful test in 2006 (2006 North Korean nuclear test) then their much more successful test in 2009 2009 North Korean nuclear test. Our article suggests as of this year, it's estimated North Korea has 20-30 nuclear weapons and has enough fissile material to at least double that. It's true that North Korea's delivery systems are somewhat limited meaning their ability to nuke anywhere besides their immediate neighbours likewise limited, although AFAIK this is also because of the limitations of their nuclear weapon tech as much as limitations of their missile tech. And I think many estimate that if they haven't already, within a few year they could probably make something which, discarding missile defences at least, could probably hit at least some part of the US. [//thebulletin.org/2019/05/north-korean-missiles-size-does-not-matter/] [//www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/11/asia-pacific/u-s-forces-korea-acknowledges-north-korean-icbm-can-hit-anywhere-united-states/] "" no, no one serious believes Iran currently has nuclear weapons. See Iran and weapons of mass destruction. I believe Iran's delivery systems may be considered slightly ahead of North Korea's (but I'm not certain) and I'm sure that cooperation would likely benefit both (whether enough to justify it for each although it probably does since it's generally believe that there is some) [//www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/238409/north-korea-and-iran-weapons-of-mass-destruction] [//www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat] [//www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/north-korea-iran], but it's not really like the OP seems to think. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Story of the Three Bears
Is Southe's versio or Jacobs' version is the most famous version of The Story of the Three Bears?--5.168.39.44 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How often have you heard a version with a fox instead of Goldilocks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Or in a castle. Castles have plenty of spare furniture and food, defeats the whole point. Even Bugs Bunny kept it in a realistically modest bear house. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Levels of fame are really hard to determine. The article you linked to says the most famous version of the story is neither Southey's nor Jacobs' but Cundall's. However, this statement (it's in the first paragraph) is unsourced. One approach you could take to compare just Southey and Jacobs, since they used different titles, is to search for mentions of the titles. Those results show them about equal in numbers of mentions in other literature. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * by searching google three bears Jacobs, three Bears Cundall, three Bears Southey and three bears Briggs, three bears jacobs wins by number of results.--87.27.156.88 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you actually counting the results or trusting Google's purported estimate? The latter is notoriously arbitrary. Sometimes off by ten million or so, sometimes just a dozen. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the vast majority of usages won't have a name attribution at all. It's not like, at the end of Bugs Bunny and the Three Bears they had a little note saying that it was based largely on X version. Many people probably consider it "traditional" or "anonymous". I don't know of any good way to determine relative fame for something like this, but one option would be to decide what differentiates each one (i.e. what makes the Jacobs' version distinct) and then cull through some arbitrarily large number of books, songs, films, etc. to see which version they drew from and then reference in sales or something. Good luck with that. Matt Deres (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jacobs' bears are insanely wealthy. Wikipedia mentions the fresh milk, but not the lovely cake and smoked salmon. And that wasn't even cooling for breakfast, just left behind when the ruling bears grew bored with that luxurious forest fortress. Southey's bears are the famous kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Phantom books - purportedly published, but untraceable
A couple of books on my "Lloyd George wishlist" are proving peculiarly hard to track down. It's not that I can find copies but not afford them (as is so often the case), but that I simply cannot find any trace of them beyond "out of stock" pages on booksellers' websites. They are and. I cannot find them in the catalogue of the British Library. Can anyone help me to find out if these books were ever actually published? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that they have been, unless the titles and ISBNs were both changed. I clicked the ISBNs and followed the link to WorldCat, and neither ISBN found any results.  I ran a title search for each one in WorldCat, and there were no results.  I went to link.springer.com, the ebooks platform for Palgrave Macmillan's parent Springer Nature, and ran a title search (ISBN searching there is rarely productive), but found nothing, even though a book to which you don't have access will always appear in the results unless you specify to the contrary.  I then ran a search for "david lloyd george", restricted to chapters (to exclude journal articles) published between 2010 and 2016, and then ran a Ctrl+F for "david" on all thirteen pages of results, but aside from one or two references to DLG in brief text quotations, all appearances of "david" were in author names, e.g. books by David S. Katz.  I can't envision a situation in which a Palgrave Macmillan title published so recently would appear neither on Springer's ebooks platform nor in WorldCat.  Nyttend (talk)
 * I would look for the Alma Mater of the author(s), and, in the likely case of it being Oxbridge, check in the relevant library. The Alma Mater of Lloyd George would also be in order, but in his case it won't work. Gem fr (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How would that help? We know that no book with this name or title was ever published.  Searching solely by author name (without authorization) may produce tons of results, and browsing their catalogues for "Lloyd George, David, 1863-1945" or something analogous will take a good deal of extraneous work when we already know that nothing by these names was published.  Nyttend backup (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the Palgrave 2012 History catalogue. Page 23 has the "Collected Correspondence" with a publication date of February 2012 and ISBN 978-0-230-00501-3, 386pp, hardback, £50.00, 216x138mm and a product link of http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=275935. It says Ian Hunter is from De Montfort University. I cannot find it listed on his pages there. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind you, his pages at De Montfort don't seem to list his "Winston and Archie: The collected correspondence of Winston Churchill and Sir Archibald Sinclair" which I know for certain does exist. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It happens that I know someone working with Cambridge University Library, and I understood the legal deposit could be done here, and that authors from (+ working at, even if educated elsewhere) the university tend to do that, instead of using British Library. Besides, Alma Mater tend to keep an eye on authors coming from it. Hence my (2 cents) suggestion. Gem fr (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The British Library by law gets a copy, the other five legal deposit libraries (including Cambridge) may request a copy within one year of publication. See Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh. I stand corrected. thanks. Gem fr (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that online booksellers, including Amazon, just scrape bibliographic references from all sorts of sources, including mistaken references to phantom items, mechanically create entries for them on their websites to increase web search visibility of their own sites, and then just mark those items as "out of stock" per default if they can't get hold of any actual vendor for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)