Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 January 10

= January 10 =

What is this folk song?

 * Transferred to Entertainment desk.

Is there a world map where sea and seashore pixels are color-coded by when Europeans learned which pixels had land?
Or a map of the Americas with the coast (including navigable rivers and straits) is color-coded by when Europe completely lost all hope there might be a navigable route to Asia through this pixel or one with only a short portage of a few miles? The canoe-able rivers could be color-coded by when the dream few miles portage to Asia was disproved. A sub-few miles Missouri catchment portage to Asia wasn't completely ruled out till the 19th century if I remember correctly. So Missouri River pixels could be colored accordingly. Alternatively when each river mile became known to Europe could be colored by when that happened so the colors would change as you go up the river from the Mississippi to where Lewis and Clark got out and walked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe Colin McEvedy's "Penguin Atlas of Modern History" has several maps showing which parts of the world were known to European exploration during specific years (I can't turn up my copy of it at the moment). They don't focus on seacoasts and rivers, however. Anyway, French explorers Joliet and Marquette went from the Great Lakes to the upper Mississippi long before Lewis and Clarke... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They completely missed Hawaii till 1778 so it must've taken long to prove they've "found" all the say 1+ square mi islands in the ocean under 30 degrees from equator, much less 40, 50 or 60. Yes I'm aware the Great Lakes portage was far from "new" in 1805, the Great Falls, Montana portage was to Europeans though. 18 miles to bypass the falls. When I see pre-accurate longitude world maps I can't always tell which is real and which is made up so that book would be useful. They'd draw Baja as an island when they just assumed and things like that so I can't tell which parts they'd actually seen and which they filled in to reduce/avoid blank parts. I even noticed the latitude of my location can be shit even though they'd already been there, marked every degree on the map and latitude was the one coordinate they didn't have to guess before Harrison chronometers. They'd sometimes stretch longitude so much it's hard to tell where's where, with a book like that historians would've already read their ship logs and stuff and correlated as best as they could. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Accurate longitudes were available long before the invention of the marine chronometer: lunar distances, observation of lunar eclipses, the moons of Jupiter. The problem was that such methods didn't work so well on a ship. Many coasts were only mapped from a ship, without going on land, and in those cases the longitude could only be estimated from latitude and the direction the ship was sailing. And in cloudy weather, both latitude and direction became uncertain.
 * The reason why it took so long to find Hawaii is its latitude. The 20s were unpopular for sailing, as the winds there are poor. Eastbound ships used the 40s, with reliable and strong winds, westbound ships often stayed closer to the equator. Add to this the routes ships took without reliable longitudes: they first headed to the latitude of their destination, then continued straight east or west until they reached it. The popular places on either side of the Northern Pacific were California (north of Hawaii) and the Philippines (south of Hawaii), reinforcing the preference already set by the winds. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought that's probably it (Luna orbits ~30x slower than it sets, Jupiter probably even harder). Ah it's in the horse latitudes ? It's so rainforesty some parts I hadn't thought of that. I suppose I would try to stay in the core of the trade winds if I was going to the Philippines. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Save classic music books please
Classic music books often have some properties that are rarer in more modern music books that I can easily take as meaning that modern society sometimes hides facts from children:


 * 1) Modern music arrangements often favor sharp keys over flat keys with 2 or more flats in the key signature.
 * 2) The chorus of "Good Night Ladies" is taken as a song of its own called "Merrily We Roll Along".
 * 3) "Lucy Locket" is considered to have a tune of so-so-la-la-so-so-mi-mi-so-so-la-la-so-mi as opposed to its traditional tune that is almost identical to "Yankee Doodle".

Is there any way we can save classic music arrangements?? (This includes balancing sharp and flat keys, treating "Good Night Ladies" as a song with a verse and a chorus, and giving "Lucy Locket" the tune of Yankee Doodle. It can also include any other special feature you think can be put in the position that I am putting these in.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not a musicologist, but it's interesting you posted this today, as I was just making my way through the Great American Songbook as I do now and then, and found myself thinking along these same lines, as the newer, more modern renditions make analogous changes to the lyrics and arrangements to better suit the ensembles and audiences of today. Have you considered reviewing our articles on the early music revival and historically informed performances?  There's a lot of arguments and counterarguments in those articles that you could apply to your endeavor to save classic music books. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have any words from that book become offensive in some sheet music? Maybe land where my fathers died to gender-neutral? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm finding this question really confusing. How does arranging a tune in C major or G major "hide facts from children"? AndyJones (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:AndyJones, it appears to hide the existence of keys with more than one flat in their key signature. Georgia guy (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like most subjects, music cannot be taught by tackling the most complex levels immediately; they have to be worked up to from simpler ones, and certainly music written in keys not requiring sharps or flats is easier for beginners to grasp and read. Physics books for 11-year-olds rarely discuss Quantum chromodynamics (I know this, because I used to edit them).
 * Surely any competent music teacher, having progressed to music in keys with some sharps or flats, will also give their pupils an overview of the full key system as background, but throwing such complexities at them from day one would likely exceed their capabilities at that point and discourage them entirely. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This question puzzles me too. Could you give us an example of a "more modern music book" that "hides facts from children"? An ISBN for example would be useful. There have long been simplified versions of songs in children's music books; "making it easier for beginning students" is not the same as "hiding facts from children". --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon, how are sharp keys easier for beginning piano students than flat keys?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me? I never said anything about that. I'm not a music pedagogue; I was just asking for an example of a modern book you find unsatisfactory in this regard so I could get a better feel for it. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

English, Welsh & Scottish people all British?
Are English, Welsh & Scottish people altogether called British? Or just the English? 86.130.185.152 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes to the first. About half of the population of Northern Ireland would also describe themselves as British, the other half would call themselves Irish though most are legally also British citizens, as are people in all four countries who are of recent overseas origin.
 * There is a tendency (no more than that) for English people to feel their "Britishness" is more important than their "Englishness", and for Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people to feel the opposite: some of the latter may resent being called "British" rather than their specific country identity.
 * The above are broad generalisations: there are details and complications, about some of which there can be differences of opinion. See British national identity for some of them. The subject can be a sensitive one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the Manx? Abductive  (reasoning) 11:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, it is a self-governing British Crown Dependency. However citizenship is covered by UK law, and Manx people are classed as British citizens.  Make of that what you will! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do they think of themselves as British? I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gibraltarians consider themselves British. Has there been any polling? Abductive  (reasoning) 11:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Go and ask, it's a nice place for a holiday! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't, so I will wait here for an answer. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the 2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 98.97% of Gibraltarians voted against shared sovereignty with Spain, by inference stating that they wanted to remain British. Whether they consider themselves more Gibraltarian than British is a question which seems not to have been asked (independence for Gibraltar is not a legal option; if the UK relinquishes Gibraltar, it has to be returned to Spain). Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a complicated question, as you might expect from four countries cobbled together with varying degrees of coercion, but they are legally all British citizens, as are the residents of the British Overseas Territories. How they identify themselves varies;
 * Most people living in Britain say that they identify equally with their British and their national identity. Almost half, (46%), say this is the case, followed by 37% who identify more with a Scottish/Welsh/English/Irish identity, and 21% who identify more as British.... Over half, (56%), of Scots say they identify with Scottishness more than Britishness. UK: National identity in Britain. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: If You're in Corsica, among Corsicans (actual Corsicans) and say You're in France, they'll shun You. I bet that's the case among some communities in Scotland or Wales, if You said they were British they might respond similarly. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Similarly, some Native Hawaiians don't think of themselves as Americans. ''Why Hawaiians don’t call themselves American' Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many Cornish people do not regard themselves as English, and some English people get very angry about that. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See Cornish identity, England and Wales: Census 2021. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)