Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 June 18

= June 18 =

Is it against Russia's gay propaganda law for a lesbian grandmother to introduce her female partner to her minor grandchildren?
Is it against Russia's gay propaganda law for a lesbian grandmother to introduce her female partner (significant other) to her minor grandchildren? Futurist110 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That honestly sounds like a request for legal advice. I don't think it'd be appropriate for anyone here to opine on what any particular law permits or prohibits other than by citing the statutory text. What the practical effects of a particular law may be (whether or not the text permits those effects) is even further beyond the scope of this board. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the interpretation of any particular law is, ultimately, up to the courts of the jurisdiction concerned. From what we know, that interpretation has been uncomfortably broad in at least some cases. --Lambiam 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In practice just displaying a rainbow flag is considered a violation, as is any positive reference to LGBTQ people. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Does this image actually look like the original painting?
A few people have brought this issue up before years ago but I want confirmation from art experts. Are the colors and lighting in of The Ninth Wave by Ivan Aivazovsky consistent with the original physical painting or is the image oversaturated? StellarHalo (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is definitely "enhanced". Here's what it looks like in the Hermatage: -- Which is consistent with this detail on commons:File:Ivan aivazovsky, la nona onda, 1850, dett.JPG. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think, though, that there is no definitive standard relating the real-life appearance of an object to the representations in a digital format such as a triplet of bytes representing RGB values. The lighting conditions at the moment a digital photograph was taken have a major influence on the result. There are also considerable differences between the appearances of the same digital file rendered on different monitors. --Lambiam 06:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You say "original physical painting . . .": do you mean the actual painting as it is now, or as it was when Aivazovsky created it? Paints are often not stable in the longer term, so some (most?) paintings will (selectively) fade and become duller than they were when originally painted (see Conservation and restoration of paintings). An informed use of digital enhancement might therefore be used to show roughly how they looked when new.
 * I have no idea of the extent to which such "restorative digital enhancement" might have actually been performed in the fine arts world to recreate the overall appearance of a work "in one go", as opposed to using various analytical techniques to aid physical restoration, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't been done. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230,195} 90.203.10.153 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the gaudy rendition seen here is better suited for a swap meet rather than a prestigious museum. Here it is on the Museum's official website: (2nd slide image); see also: http://rmgallery.ru/en/145 — I've come across this before, where uploaders insist on "improving" works of art. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Allied occupation of Vienna
The Yalta conference article says it was agreed that Berlin would be occupied after the war in four zones (British, American, French, and Soviet) and the Potsdam conference article says that this was also agreed for Vienna. When, then, was it decided to make Vienna's central district into a fifth, "international" zone? And what was the reasoning for doing this in Vienna but not in Berlin? Is it just that the ring of main streets surrounding central Vienna were considered to form a natural boundary and Berlin had nothing corresponding? --76.71.5.208 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources disagree on when the decision was made: At the Yalta Conference (4 to 11 February 1945), when the Allied Commission for Austria was established (4 July 4 1945), or at the Potsdam Conference (17 July to 2 August 1945). The Potsdam Conference probably only sanctioned the de facto situation on the ground. Although the minutes of the Yalta Conference contain a Memorandum by the United States Chiefs of Staff dated 17 January 1945 recommending that the next U.S.-British-U.S.S.R. staff conference discuss the military aspects of Zones of Occupation in Germany and Austria, and there are several items concerning the allocation of zones of occupation in Germany, I don't see any further mention of zones of occupation in Austria. So it would seem that this was part of the agreement establishing the Allied Commission for Austria. However, the text of that agreement mentions "the zones of occupation" but does not define them in any way. As long as we don't know when and how this was decided, we'll probably also be unable to understand the why. --Lambiam 07:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This (pdf) is a document with the text of an Agreement between the Allied Governments on Zones of Occupation in Austria and the Administration of the City of Vienna, adopted and signed by the European Advisory Commission meeting at Lancaster House, London, 9th July 1945. It divides Vienna into five zones, four being occupied by the armed forces of each of the allies. For the fifth, the document states: "The district of Innere Stadt will be occupied by armed forces of the four Powers." No rationale is given. Speculating on a reason, I suspect that the Innere Stadt, the historic original core from which Vienna grew, was so much the heart of Vienna that assigning it to one of the allied armed forces would almost have been tantamount to assigning Vienna to that ally. As our Innere Stadt article states: "Before 1850, Innere Stadt was physically equivalent with the city of Vienna." It contains all the historically important buildings of Vienna, including the Vienna City Hall and the Austrian Parliament Building. --Lambiam 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources, and I think I agree with your speculation. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The value of US federal citizenship and US state citizenship back in 1790
Just how much value did US federal citizenship and US state citizenship each have back in 1790? As in, what did having each of these things actually give you back then? Futurist110 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, local assistance service regulations still to this day require that the beneficiaries of various government welfare largesse programs could be limited to citizens, veterans, the disabled, seniors, and the like. Citizens could run for and become elected to the local, state, and county commissions charged with maintaining health and safety, and thus deciding who would be given help. One of the most lucrative jobs for a citizen involved primarily in commerce was and is as an ambassador, which requires citizenship. The right to involve oneself with military contracts in any way, including as a party, auditor, employee, etc., often still requires citizenship. The intangible value of local citizenship was based in part that someone who otherwise knows little about you, perhaps a potential customer or juror, might feel very different towards you if you were a citizen, and almost always in a positive sense. 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:E1AE:B587:2AA0:1FCC (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to read Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America, published in 1835 and outlining how things worked in the first 50 years of your country - not as narrow a focus as you have asked, but a starting point while you wait for other references. It's available online (see external links section).70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since things were largely the same into the 1810s, this should be relevant...in the 1810s, my church was largely composed of immigrants from the UK and their children, especially congregations in the coastal cities. Since members were opposed to swearing loyalty oaths at the time, the immigrants couldn't become US citizens, and this meant that they all became enemy aliens at the beginning of the War of 1812.  Since UK natives were a huge share of the US population during the war, the state and federal governments couldn't go rounding them up, so a more practical approach was requiring loyalty oaths — which of course made things more awkward for those who outright refused them.  Nyttend backup (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It lets the side down chaps (Western Brothers?)
I’m looking for a recording of the song “It lets the side down, chaps, it lets the side down” which might be by the Western Brothers. Can anyone point me? Amisom (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)