Humanities desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 27

Old French money vs today's American dollars

What would 0.20Fr of 1867 be worth in today's American dollars? Is there a Wiki-conversion I could use for a potential Good Article I have nominated on Giovanni Caselli. Thanks --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps, but see Template:Inflation#Currency_conversion. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That template doesn't work for French Francs. One problem with the Franc is the change from old to new Franc in 1960. DuncanHill (talk)

According to our article on the Latin Monetary Union, "One LMU Franc represented 4.5 grams (69 grains) of fine silver or 0.290322 grams (4.48035 grains) of fine gold." DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

historicalstatistics.org's currency converter has French francs back to 1880 - I know that's not quite far enough but could it help with ballpark? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the franc was on a bimetallic standard. Convert to gold, then 1867 USD, then convert to present-day. I assume there's no template that does this, as it would be quite tricky. You probably ought to cite source(s) of the 1867 USD gold value. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary conversion is just one vast pit of horrible uncertainty and hair loss. Reliable sources are hard to come by. I have been hunting without success for a contemporary printed table of currency conversions which I came across some time ago, but sadly now can't locate. However, the gold standard was one of the most consistent and stable exchange mechanisms for well over a century, beginning with the GB pound from 1816. See also Pound sterling#Gold standard, although sadly there are no refs. I suggest you do any basic calculations in grains. If (as stated above) the FF was worth 4.48 grains Au, and the US dollar#Silver and gold standards since 1837 (argh no refs) was worth 23.22 grains Au, therefore 1 FF = 0.192 USD, or about 20¢. 20 centimes would be worth 1/5 of that, or around 4¢. Measuring Worth computes this as today's equivalent of anything from $0.62 to $102, depending. Best of luck with the GA. MinorProphet (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the dollar also bimetallic at the time? One could also do a silver to silver conversion and see what that comes up with. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and argh my previous post was wrong. It really is a complete minefield. See the very detailed and exact Silver Bullion Certificates : Speech of Hon. F. M. Cockrell of Missouri, Debate in the Senate, June 9 1890, esp. p. 6. It appears that in 1834 the US reduced the gold dollar to one of 25.8 grains Au, 0.9 fine; and in 1837 fixed the silver dollar at 412½ grains, also 0.9 fine, as legal tender for all sums. If I have understood correctly, this continued until 1873 when the gold dollar became the single standard, and the full silver dollar was abolished. This led to the Bland–Allison Act of 1878 (pp. 7-8) and eventually the end of the bimetallic standard despite the efforts of the Silverites and the Cross of Gold speech.

So my previous gold calculation was wrong in taking 23.22 grains Au as 0.9 fine, since this is the pure weight. Thus again, using fine values: 1 FF = 4.48 / 25.8 = $0.1736. Taking 1/5 of that, 20 centimes = $0.375 or 3.75¢.

There was a silver 5-Franc coin issued in 1867 ("A Napoleon III French Silver 5 Francs") weighing 25 grams or 385.81 grains, 0.9000 fine, therefore 1 silver FF contained 77.162 grains. Thus 1 silver FF = 77.162 / 412.5 US silver dollar, or a ratio of 0.187. 20 centimes is 1/5 of that, which is $0.0374, or 3.74¢. If I am right, this makes the gold and silver equivalents almost exactly the same. MeasuringWorth computes it as between $0.58 to $95.40 I really hate doing maths in public, and my calculations may well be completely wrong. Please shoot me down in flames if necessary. MinorProphet (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other news: Silver price hits eight-year high as retail traders pile in

Third Secret of Fatima

Were the events described in the Third Secret of Fatima ever depicted cinematographically? Thanks 79.31.10.126 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third secret seems to have been a bit of a let down as far as secrets go; I don't know how filmable it would be. If you mean whether the Fatima story (of the three secrets) has been set to film, the answer is yes, a few times. The template box at the bottom of the article lists two: The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima and Fatima. Both appear to be faith-based depictions (i.e. the story is unquestionably accepted as true). Matt Deres (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rewriting the question to make it more clear: Were the visionary events described in the text of the third of the Secrets of Fátima ever depicted cinematographically (in a movie, documentary, animated cartoon, etc...)? --79.31.10.126 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan assassination attempt bullets question

When John Hinckley tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981 (Ronald Reagan assassination attempt), did Hinckley use up all of the bullets in his gun? Or were there still some unused and unfired bullets in Hinckley's gun when he stopped shooting? I know that Hinckley fired six shots, but I don't know just how many bullets his gun had–and was capable of having–in total. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Röhm RG-14 states that it was the model of gun Hinckley used. It holds six bullets. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason as to why it was made to hold that number of bullets and not either more or less? Futurist110 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Revolver, which typically hold 6 bullets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know why exactly John Hinckley chose a Revolver and not some other kind of gun? Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on firearms, but Samuel Colt seems to have favored five (Colt Paterson) or six (Colt Army Model 1860). Maybe it's all the fault of the Westerns and their "six-shooters"? No movie cowpoke ever boasted of their "seven-shooter". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're despicable. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WAG alert: If you added more, it would probably make the revolver part too big and cumbersome, and fewer would waste the available volume??? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why Hinckley chose a revolver with six bullets? Because he wanted to get enough shots at Reagan but he didn't actually want his revolver to be too big and cumbersome to carry? This is a question for everyone here, BTW–not just to you! Futurist110 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that most commonly-available revolvers are six-shot or five-shot, with six being the more common (I think by a significant factor). Hinckley wasn't exactly in his right mind; I would advise against trying to ascribe too much sense to any of the actions he took. I mean, he used a gun chambered in .22 long rifle. Yes, it can still kill (as can an airgun), but it really speaks against the idea that Hinckley had any idea what he was doing. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on guns; so, what exactly is the issue with using a gun chambered in .22 long rifle? Futurist110 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of a kill with .22 LR is much lower than other extremely common handgun rounds. I'd suggest reading up on stopping power and terminal ballistics. My point isn't that .22 LR can't kill, or requires exceptional luck; as the gentleman below pointed out, RFK was killed by an assassin with a .22 LR handgun, and James Brady (famously wounded in the Reagan assassination attempt) suffered severe lifelong disability from a headshot by a .22 LR bullet. My point is that it's a poor choice because, even assuming an assassin gets off all six shots on target (a risky assumption), the .22 LR round has a higher likelihood of failing to cause a lethal injury from a good hit—put differently, its stopping power is just too low. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does "stopping power" translate to in real life terms? A failure to explode? Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to explode is not the issue. To simplify dramatically, if a person is hit in the body by a very small bullet traveling at a low velocity, they may well be able to keep fighting or survive with lesser injuries. If hit by a much larger bullet traveling at a much higher velocity, there is a much higher likelihood that they're will either be killed or will drop to the ground completely incapacitated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely incapacitated" as in, permanently? For the rest of their lives? Futurist110 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, "completely incapacitated" in the context of warfare means unable to resume fighting for a very long time to come. In a military sense, the severe wounding of an enemy soldier is better than his instant death. These severely wounded soldiers impose a much greater burden than dead soldiers since they require immediate battlefield evacuation, intensive hospital care, long term therapy and may well result in the erosion of both military and civilian morale. Some soldiers who survive may return to close to normal functioning with the best medical attention, while others will be severely incapacitated for life. And every other point on that continuum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your chance to become the proud owner of a 30-shot revolver. --Lambiam 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This web page recommends a nine shot .22 caliber revolver for personal protection. For those who think that weak, a single .22 bullet killed Robert F. Kennedy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

The image does not show a revolver. --Lambiam 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The writer mentions pink semi-automatic handguns being marketed to women toward the end, and that is what is illustrated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The handgun used to assassinate Bobby Kennedy was an eight-shot Iver Johnson .22 caliber Cadet 55-A revolver. We have a Wikipedia article about the cheap rifle used to assassinate his older brother, but not an article about this pistol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote letter to the editor that doesn't know what he's talking about. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]