Misplaced Pages

:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reference desk Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:05, 13 October 2024 editScsbot (talk | contribs)Bots239,613 edits edited by robot: adding date header(s)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:45, 25 December 2024 edit undoXuxl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,876 edits Death Row commutations by Biden 
Line 7: Line 7:
]</noinclude> ]</noinclude>


= September 28 = = December 11 =


== Shopping carts ==
== Consecration of Church of England churches ==


Where were the first shopping carts introduced?
According to our article ] "Wagner had a lifelong opposition to the consecration of Anglican churches, on the basis that this would " an opening for the State to intervene in their affairs". This view was shared by many Tractarians. On one occasion he complained to Richard Durnford, Bishop of Chichester, that consecration was "a farce". Pusey supported Wagner in his attempts to leave his newly built churches unconsecrated, but to no avail". What opening to the State would consecration give, beyond that already provided by the established status of the Church? Are any CofE churches unconsecrated (as opposed to deconsecrated)? Thank you, ] (]) 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)<br>
*] and ] say the Humpty Dumpty chain
Courtesy links:<br>
*] says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review
]<br>
]<br>
Both articles agree it was in 1937 in Oklaholma. I believe that Humpty Dumpty is more likely, but some high quality sources would be useful. ] (]) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]


:It seems to be a matter of some dispute, but by the Smithsonian Institution has the complex details of the dispute between Sylvan Goldman and ]. No mention of Piggly Wiggly, but our article on Watson notes that in 1946, he donated the first models of his cart to 10 grocery stores in Kansas City.
:I saw a similar argument about ] chapel. According to ], {{tq|in a characteristic attempt to keep the college out of the grasp of those whose views might be alien, the council refused to have the chapel consecrated, much to the fury of the then BISHOP OF OXFORD; it remains unconsecrated to this day.}}<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|editor=Hibbert, Christopher|editor-link=Christopher Hibbert|encyclopedia =The Encyclopaedia of Oxford|title=Keble College|year=1992|publisher=]|isbn=0-333-48614-5|pages=206–208}}</ref>{{rp|207}} ] (]) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
: has both Watson and Goldman introducing their carts in 1947 (this may refer to carts that telescope into each other for storage, a feature apparently lacking in Goldman's first model).
:An example of state intervention was the ], which Wagner wrote pamphlets against.<ref>{{cite ODNB|url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/41252?docPos=2|title=Oxford DNB article: Wagner, Arthur Douglas|last=Yates|first=Nigel|authorlink=Nigel Yates|year=2004|doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/41252}}</ref>
: says that Goldman's first cart was introduced to Humpty Dumty in 1937.
::{{ping|DuncanHill}} The local bishop would have had more rights over a consecrated church than over an unconsecrated proprietary chapel. I haven't found any recent sources, but '''' (Henry William Cripps, 1886) says {{tq|as is said by Lord Coke , as the church is a place dedicated and consecrated to the service of God , and is common to all the inhabitants , it therefore belongs to the bishop to order it in such manner as the service of God may best be celebrated}} on page 400 and has a section on proprietary chapels on pages 153 and 154. ] (]) 19:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Make of that what you will. ] (]) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::Absolutely. I remember that the power lift arrangement mentioned in the Smithsonian's link was still an object of analysis for would-be inventors in the mid-sixties, and possibly later, even though the soon to be ubiquituous checkout counter conveyor belt was very much ready making it unnecessary. Couldn't help curiously but think about those when learning about ] at school later, see my user page, but it's true "Bredt" sounded rather like "Bread" in my imagination. --] (]) 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:On Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing shopping carts referenced in Portland, Oregon in 1935 or earlier, and occasionally illustrated, at a store called the Public Market; and as far as the term itself is concerned, it goes back to at least the 1850s. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::But perhaps referring to a cart brought by the shopper to carry goods home with, rather than one provided by the storekeeper for use in-store? ] (]) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


{{ping|Alansplodge|Askedonty|Baseball Bugs}} thank you for your help, it seems that the Harvard Business Review is mistaken and the Piggly Wiggly chain did not introduce the first shopping baskets, which answers my question. The shopping cart article references a , which shows that several companies were selling early shopping carts in 1937, so crediting Sylvan Goldman alone is not the whole story. ] (]) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Why did we stop integrating art in public spaces? ==


== Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII ==
So in historical artifacts and buildings you see a deep interlinking of art and function, bridges, light poles and buildings are brimming with art. Why did we heavily reduce this? My guess is that business contributed to art as a pr move and with the advent of the printing press it stopped making economic sense. What do you think? ] (]) 13:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


At 53:20 in ], British soldiers talk about 'flowers on the way into Belgium, raspberries on the way out', and specifically reference lilacs. I imagine this was very clear to 1958 audiences, but what is the significance of lilacs? Is it/was it a symbol of Belgium? ] (]) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:We didn't. ] (]) 14:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think it's just that the BEF ] in the Spring, which is lilac time. ] (]) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:There are contemporary reports of the streets being strewn with lilac blossom. See "Today the troops crossed the frontier along roads strewn with flowers. Belgian girls, wildly enthusiastic, plucked lilac from the wayside and scattered it along the road to be torn and twisted by the mighty wheels of the mechanised forces." ] (]) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ah! That would explain it, thanks! ] (]) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


= December 12 =
:And where have you been for the last 12 years? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:] says "The history of art in many cultures shows a series of wave-like trends where the level of ornament used increases over a period ... ... to be decisively reduced by the Arts and Crafts movement and then ]." Fashion, then, probably explains why we no longer (currently) have intricate decoration on or , and this carries over in things like street light poles and bridge railings. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::] and ] both mention a reduction in decoration. <span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 21:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The question is… do we have less “art” in public design, or simply a different ''form'' of “art”? ] (]) 22:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Honestly it seems obvious that we reduced prioritising art in public spaces ] (]) 10:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Personal observations can be flawed. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::You haven't brought up any stats ] (]) 20:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Nor have you, and you're the one making the claim. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 08:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:What? Why do you think the advent of ''printing'' had anything to do with this? -- ] (]) 20:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::]]] ] has a reference for flyposting in the late 15th century, reasonably hot on the heels of moveable type. Beyond that, the lag in moving to full-blown advertising is mysterious, but ''advances'' in printing must be relevant. ] says "Advances in printing allowed retailers and manufacturers to print handbills and trade cards. For example, Jonathon Holder, a London haberdasher in the 1670s, gave every customer a printed list of his stock with the prices affixed. At the time, Holder's innovation was seen as a 'dangerous practice' and an unnecessary expense for retailers." But further down the page there's this nice picture of public artwork from 1835. , because I couldn't read it all properly in our version. {{clear}} ]&nbsp;] 22:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think that PR is an adequate explanation. Consider ] (built 1859-1865) by local government in London. It wasn't a private business trying to drum up income, because it had a monopoly on everybody's sewage, and it didn't need PR because London was desperate to get rid of the stuff. It wasn't even a public building (in the sense that members of the public needed to visit it). Yet it was decorated on the outside, and ''crazy'' decorated inside.
:I suggest that such decoration takes many skilled person-hours, and that as labour became more expensive, the cost of decoration became prohibitive.{{cn}} <span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 10:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== The USA adding a new state ==
:::This article, , says that the ] movement of the first years of the 20th-century rejected ornamentation in architecture and other fields, taking the example of Viennese architect ] and his 1908 essay, '']'':
:::{{xt|Adolf Loos campaigned to strip the ornament from language, from dress, and from dwelling. “I have freed mankind from superfluous ornament,” he bragged. “‘Ornament’ was once the synonym for ‘beauty’. Today, thanks to my life’s work, it is a synonym for ‘inferior’.” Espousing a middle-class ethos of functionalism, economic rationality, impersonality, and restraint, modernists redirected investment from luxury expenditures to factories, sanitary facilities, and municipal infrastructures. In place of individual expression they advocated standardized solutions, naked structures, white walls, and crisp geometric forms.}}
:::] (]) 11:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I wondered what the "crime" was. His article says:
::::{{bq|"the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use." It was therefore a crime to force craftsmen or builders to waste their time on ornamentation that served to hasten the time when an object would become obsolete (design theory). Loos's stripped-down buildings influenced the minimal massing of modern architecture, and stirred controversy.}}
::::I have some questions about this.
::::* Does ''therefore'' really belong? It would make sense in the opposite direction, ''rational efficient building is removing ornament -> evolution of culture is removing ornament,'' but doesn't seem to follow the other way round, as presented.
::::* Does, or did, ornament function as ]?
::::* This word "massing" ... is that a technical architectural term? Or a bad translation from German? Or both? And what does it mean? "Covered in masses"?
::::]&nbsp;] 12:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I question his premises. If ornamentation really causes obsolescence (by adversely affecting the function of an object) it must therefore be more than mere decoration (which by definition is not functional). The only way I can understand ornamentation causing 'obsolescence' is by going out of fashion. The decoration of ] is well out of fashion, but that does not make the bridge obsolete.
:::::Note ], built in the 1890s, and decorated per the contemporary fashion. A Brutalist extension was added in 1977. Guess which bit was demolished in 2002? <span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 14:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I couldn't guess with certainty, since Brutalism has its fans and protectors due to its historical interest (reminiscent of the scene in Futurama where there is a concert of ''classical hip-hop,'' and how "modern art" is now over 100 years old). Besides, out-of-date ornament may have caused buildings to look offensive in the past, before the notion of "heritage". Certainly in Georgian England there was great destruction of Tudor architecture because everything had to be "improved", meaning neoclassical or approximately Parisian. ]&nbsp;] 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


If my understanding is correct, the following numbers are valid at present: (a) number of Senators = 100; (b) number of Representatives = 435; (c) number of electors in the Electoral College = 538. If the USA were to add a new state, what would happen to these numbers? Thank you. ] (]) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:The number of senators would increase by 2, and the number of representatives would probably increase by at least 1. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thus, to answer the final question, the minimum number of Electors would be 3… more if the new state has more Representatives (based on population). ] (]) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:In the short term, there would be extra people in congress. The ] had 437 representatives, because Alaska and Hawaii were granted one upon entry regardless of the apportionment rules. Things were smoothed down to 435 at the next census, two congresses later. --] (]) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


Thanks. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me re-phrase my question. (a) The number of Senators is always 2 per State, correct? (b) The number of Representatives is what? Is it "capped" at 435 ... or does it increase a little bit? (c) The number of Electors (per State) is simply a function of "a" + "b" (per State), correct? Thanks. ] (]) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking for a picture of this person. You'd think someone with a school and a prize named after them shouldn't be that difficult, but I'm having no luck. ] (]) 13:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:As I understand it, it is indeed capped at 435, though Golbez brings up a point I hadn't taken into account -- apparently it can go up temporarily when states are added, until the next reapportionment. --] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{br}}I suggest that (b) would probably depend on whether the hypothetical new state was made up of territory previously part of one or more existing states, or territory not previously part of any existing state. And I suspect that the eventual result would not depend on any pre-calculable formula, but on cut-throat horsetrading between the two main parties and other interested bodies. {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Nope, it's capped at 435. See ]. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --] (]) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The Constitution has a much higher cap, currently around eleven thousand. ] (]) 20:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, one other refinement. The formula you've given for number of electors is correct, for states. But it leaves out the ], which gets as many electors as it would get if it were a state, but never <s>less</s> <u>more</u> than those apportioned to the smallest state. In practice that means DC gets three electors. That's why the total is 538 instead of 535. --] (]) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Oops; I remembered the bit about the smallest state wrong. It's actually never ''more'' than the smallest state. Doesn't matter in practice; still works out to 3 electors for the foreseeable future, either way, because DC would get 3 electors if it were a state, and the least populous state gets 3. --] (]) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </small>


= December 13 =
:] I looked in Google books and found a small image in Ebony May 1984. ] (]) 13:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::@] Fantastic, thanks! ] (]) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


== Bitcoin price rigging == == economics: coffee prices question ==


in news report "On Tuesday, the price for Arabica beans, which account for most global production, topped $3.44 a pound (0.45kg), having jumped more than 80% this year. " how do they measure it? some other report mention it is a commodity price set for trading like gold silver etc. what is the original data source for this report? i checked a few other news stories and did not find any clarification about this point, they just know something that i don't. thank you in advance for your help. ] (], ]) 01:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
]
I am told this may be in the wrong forum. ] (]) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


:], they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the ]. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later
:*explanation
:*I googled "coffee c futures price chart" and the first link was uk.investing.com which I can't link here
:*if you have detailed questions about ]s they will probably go over my head. ] (]) 01:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::thanks. i see the chart which you cannot link here. why did it peak and then drop shortly after? ] (], ]) 04:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Financial markets tend to have periods of increase followed by periods of decrease (bull and bear markets), see ] for background. ] (]) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== source for an order of precedence for abbotts ==
= September 29 =


Hi friends. The article for ] in the UK refers to an "order of precedence for abbots in Parliament". (Sourced to an encyclopedia, which uses the wording "The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's"). Did a ranking/order of precedence exist and if yes where can it be found? Presumably this would predate the dissolution of monasteries in england. Thanks.] (]) 06:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
==Women kidnapped to harems in the 1950s ==


:The abbots called to parliament were called "Mitred Abbots" although not all were entitled to wear a mitre. Our ] article has much the same information as you quote, and I suspect the same citations. The only other reference I could find, also from an encyclopedia;
:I read a story online in which a Greek woman in the 1950s was almost tricked to being trafficked to a harem in the Arabian Peninsula, after answering an job advertisement in a newspaper. I remember hearding similar stories when I read about ].
:{{xt|Of the abbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence till A.D. 1154, when ], an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St. Alban's. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading had the third place.}}
:Certain athentic cases of European women dissapearing in the Muslim world, such as ], have been speculated to be victims of such kidnappings.
:
:I wonder: are there actual historic cases when European women where known to be kidnapped to harems in that time period? And how probable was it?
:] (]) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people have called sutch stories propaganda. But it is factual that Africa women where kidnapped to become slave ]s in ]s in the Gulf in that time period (] was still legal). So if African women where subjected to this fate, why not European woman? Are there known cases? Thank you --] (]) 00:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::] ]s were much in demand in the ], which until 1916 included the ] containing ] and ]. There is no reason to think this ended when slavery became illegal. Quoting from ]:
:::"The Trafficking in Persons Report of 2007 from the US Department of State says that sexual slavery exists in the ], where women and children may be trafficked from the ], Eastern Europe, ], Africa, ] or other parts ].<sup></nowiki>]]</nowiki>]]</nowiki>]]</sup>"
::&nbsp;--] 09:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


:Sources differ on the order. There is a list published in 1842 of 26 abbots as "generally ... reckoned" in order here
::::Yes, I realise it is logical and reasonable to assume that there where such cases. Chattel slavery was indeed both legal and in full practice in most Gulf states in the 1950s.
: ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But I am interested in the particular time period of the decades around the 1950s: before the fall of the Societ Union, when modern sex trafficking from Eastern Europe became rampant. Where there such cases in the Interwar period, and the 1950s? It is that particular time period I am interested in. --] (]) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::"Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be ]s. ] (]) 14:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"Mean lords" looks like an alternative spelling that was used in the 19th century, so it was probably a correct spelling in 1842. ] (]) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you everyone very much for your time and research, truly appreciated. all the best,] (]) 23:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Are the proposed Trump tariffs a regressive tax in disguise? ==
:::There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended. And in the cited modern source (it's misleadingly 3 citations to the same state department report), simply listing countries means nothing -- working through them, you'll see most countries are tier 2 and below, and it seems all will be listed as 2 or more of source, transit, and destination for trafficking. I'm not disputing the problem of trafficking -- I'm asserting that your statements are unsupported.
:::As to the OP's question of whether ] still occurs by force/abduction/kidnapping, it's relatively easy to find individual nightmare cases: , . More broadly, I found an old : on p.3 it summarizes the notion of coercion (with citations to studies), where as you may expect the majority of victims have come willingly under a range of expectations, but "they may nonetheless end up in exploitative situations through deception, coercion or violence." This de facto sex slavery condition may be something like what you've heard reports of happening to West African migrants in the Gulf. ] (]) 18:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


I'm wondering if there has been analysis of this. The US government gets the tariff money(?) and biggest chunk will be on manufactured goods from China. Those in turn are primarily consumer goods, which means that the tariff is something like a sales tax, a type of tax well known to be regressive. Obviously there are leaks in the description above, so one would have to crunch a bunch of numbers to find out for sure. But that's what economists do, right? Has anyone weighed in on this issue? Thanks. ] (]) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't understand what you mean when you say "There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended", since legal chattel slavery in Saudi Arabia and Yemen ended in 1962, slavery in Kuwait in 1949, slavery in Dubai in 1963, and slavery in Oman in 1970 - and it is well documented that all of these countries certainly still had chattel slaves until the very year of legal emancipation (I have studied that issue).
:There have been many public comments about how this is a tax on American consumers. It's only "in disguise" to those who don't understand how tariffs work. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::However, my specific question is: are there known cases when European women where abducted to be used for sexual slavery (slave concubinage being legal) in harems on the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s? This was a particular time period: prior to the fall of the Soviet East Communist Block, when sex trafficking became rampant. --] (]) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'll see what I can find. Do you remember if the revenue collected is supposed to be enough for the government to care about? I.e. enough to supposedly offset the inevitable tax cuts for people like Elon Musk? ] (]) 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I assume the point is that slaves in ], ], ], ] and ] were not slaves in the Ottoman Empire after it ended since even if they were part of the Ottoman Empire before, they no longer were. Even slaves in Turkey would not be slaves in the Ottoman Empire. More generally, the slave trade would likely have been significantly affected by the fall of the empire. New routes would likely need to have been developed, and sources may not have been so willing to provide slaves to lesser powers. (Remember this was before any of them became rich and powerful via oil money, I mean a number of them weren't even the modern day states that they are now at the time.) Also the end of the Ottoman Empire didn't happen in a vacuum, WW1 and other related events would likely have significantly affected the trade even of the empire had survived. So while clearly slavery didn't end, it's likely it was quite different from what it was before. ] (]) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Import duties are extremely recessive in that (a) they are charged at the same rate for any given level of income; and (b) those with less income tend to purchase far more imported goods than those with more income (define “more” and “less” any way you wish). Fiscally, they border on insignificant, running an average of 1.4% of federal revenue since 1962 (or, 0.2% of GDP), compared to 47.1% (8.0%) for individual income tax and 9.9% (1.7%) for corporate tax receipts.] (]) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have studied the issue, and the slave trade and use of slaves where not much affected in the Arabian Peninsula by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the question of the post: is it confirmed that European women where trafficked to the harems in the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s or around that time? --] (]) 16:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Curious about your point (b); why would this be? It seems to me that as my income has risen I have probably bought more stuff from abroad, at least directly. It could well be that I've bought less indirectly, but I'm not sure why that would be. --] (]) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::More like, those with less income spend a larger fraction of their income on imported goods, instead of services. ] (]) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Trovatore, most daily use items are imported: toothbrushes, combs, kitchenware, shopping bags. Most durable goods are imported: phones, TVs, cars, furniture, sporting goods, clothes. These items are more likely to be imported because it is MUCH cheaper / more profitable to make them abroad. Wander through Target, Sam's Club, or Wal-Mart and you'll be hard pressed to find "Made in America" goods. But, in a hand-crafted shop, where prices have to reflect the cost of living HERE, rather than in Bangladesh, prices soar. ] (]) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Um, sure, but surely it's a fairly rare person of any income level who spends a significant portion of his/her income on artisanal goods. --] (]) 06:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::PiusImpavidus, Every income strata (in America) spends far more on services than on goods. Services tend to be more of a repeated purchase: laundry (vs. washing machine), Uber (vs. car), rent (vs. purchase), internet (vs. books), etc. ] (]) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Ron A. Dunn: Australian arachnologist ==
== First theatres in England ==


For {{q|Q109827858}} I have given names of "Ron. A.", an address in 1958 of 60 Mimosa Road, Carnegie, {{nowrap|Victoria, Australia S.E. 9}} (he was also in Carnegie in 1948) and an ''uncited'' death date of 25 June 1972.
Hello.
says on that "Le 29 juin 1572, une première ordonnance du Parlement, l'Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, impose que chaque troupe de comédiens soit sous le patronage d'un noble ou de deux édiles" but write on that "the Mayor and Corporation of London first banned plays in 1572 as a measure against the plague".
These two statements are said to be the origin of the birth of theatres in London.
Can you tell me which one is correct or give me more information? Already thanks, ] (]) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC) - sorry for my bad english !


He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS.
:Probably both are correct.
:The Act of Parliament would have applied throughout England and Wales, and governed existing (and future) acting companies, which might have travelled around the country performing in public, and/or performed at private houses of rich patrons, or had a fixed venue (see for example ]).
:The ban on performances by the authorities in London (followed by their expulsion of 'players' entirely in 1575 – see also ]) applied to the ] ''only'', which occupied (as it still does) an area of about one square mile or so on the north bank of the Thames. These measures prompted theatre companies to move to, and build theatres in, the district of ] on the south bank of the Thames (across ]) where the City of London had no authority. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


Can anyone find the full given names, and a source or the death date, please? What did the honorifics stand for? Do we know how he earned his living? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:We have an article ], unfortunately it doesn't mention players. ] (]) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::], it does now (using ). ] (]) 13:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Now you have me curious what an edile/] was in London in that era. Our article (and basically everything turned up in a cursory web search) seems to be focused on the Roman office. The only mention relating to late 16thC England is about a mention of the office in a Shakespeare play. -- ] (]) 23:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Avocado}} "two justices of the peace at the least, whereof one to be of the Quorum, where and in what shire they shall happen to wander." according to {{cite book|last=Thorndike|first=Ashley Horace|author-link=Ashley Horace Thorndike|title=Shakespeare's Theater|url=https://archive.org/details/shakespearesthea00thor_0/page/n9/mode/2up|year=1916|publisher=The Macmillan Company|location=New York|page=204}}, which is the source the French article uses. ] (]) 23:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


:] Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start
Many thanks for your answers. ] (]) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:A scan of the 1954 Carnegie electoral roll has
:*Dunn, Ronald Albert, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, accountant
:*Dunn, Gladys Harriet I, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, home duties
:I can't check newspapers.com, but The Age apparently had a report about Ronald Albert Dunn on 27 Jun 1972 ] (]) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I accessed Ancestry.com via the Misplaced Pages Library, so you should have access. Newspapers.com is also available via the library if you register, which I haven't. An editor with a Newspapers.com account would be able to make a clipping which anyone could access online.
:::I agree AAA is probably the Australian Society of Accountants, a predecessor of ]. They merged in 1953 () so the information would have been outdated in 1958. AAIS could be Associate Amalgamated Institute of Secretaries (source Abbreviations page 9). ] (]) 16:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. ] (]) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Or perhaps someone at ] could help? ] (]) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::They already have at ]. ] (]) 12:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given his specialty, I suggest the honorific stands for "Aaaaaaaaagh It's (a) Spider!" ] (]) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


= September 30 = = December 15 =


== Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception ==
== Dalit hindu rape victim ==


Did the ] tarnish Rome's reputation to the degree that it affected the Byzantine self-perception as the "Roman Empire" and as "Romans"? Including Constantinople's vision of succession to the Roman Empire and its notion of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to remember the name of that Dalit/lower caste Hindu rape victim who was from a movie (not in English). She became a MP and was assassinated over legal case. What was her name? Maybe she was Buddhist since she was from near Nepal. ] (]) 00:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:Various maneuverings in the middle ages (including the infamous Fourth Crusade) certainly gave many Byzantines a negative view of western Catholics, so that toward the end some frankly preferred conquest by Muslims to a Christian alliance which would involve Byzantine religious and political subordination to the European West (see discussion at ]). But the Byzantines generally considered themselves to be the real Romans, and called themselves "Romaioi" much more often than they called themselves Greek (of course, "Byzantine" is a later retroactive term). ] (]) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:]? (She was the top search result when I put "india bandit queen" into Google...) -- ] (]) 03:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, sounds right. Thanks.] (]) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:I think these religious schisms had nothing to do with the secular political situation. In 330, before Christianity became an established religion that could experience schisms, ] moved the capital of the unitary Roman Empire from Rome to the city of ] and dubbed it the ] – later renamed to Constantinople. During the later periods in which the ] and ] were administered separately, this was not considered a political split but an expedient way of administering a large polity, of which Constantinople remained the capital. So when the Western wing of the Roman Empire fell to the ] and even the later ] disappeared, the Roman Empire, now only administered by the Constantinopolitan court, continued in an unbroken succession from the ] and subsequent ]. &nbsp;--] 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Business terms relating to ] ==
::In Ottoman Turkish, the term {{large|]}} (''Rum''), ultimately derived from Latin ''Roma'', was used to designate the Byzantine Empire, or, as a geographic term, its former lands. Fun fact: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, ] and his successors claimed the title of ], with the Ottoman Empire being the successor of the ]. IMO this claim has merit; Mehmet II was the first ruler of yet another dynasty, but rather than replacing the existing Byzantine administrative apparatus, he simply continued its use for the empire he had become the ruler of. If you recognize the claim, the ] is today's successor of the Roman Kingdom. &nbsp;--] 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The Ottomans basically continued the Byzantine tax-collection system, for a while. ] (]) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Foreign Presidents/Heads of State CURRENTLY Buried in the USA ==
I'm uncertain whether business terms ], ], and ] are related to ]. Regardless, I'm seeking business terms relating to a surprise album, which has {{tq|little or no prior announcement, marketing or promotion}}. ] (]) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated)
== Assistance with interpreting scope and manner of a UN event ==
For example, In Woodlawn Cemetery in Miami, FL, there are two Cuban presidents and a Nicaraguan president.


Are there any other foreign presidents, heads of state, that are buried in the USA? ] (]) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I see new draft at Wikinews, sister of Misplaced Pages, about a ceasefire call: ''']'''. I have difficulty understanding structure of the UN organisation or its events. Please view the talk page of the article and assist at your earliest convenience? Thank you in advance. ] (], ]) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:You will need to take that up with Wikinews. We can only help you here with Misplaced Pages issues. ]|] 08:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC) :As far as I know, all 4 of the presidents of the ] are buried in Texas, which is currently in the US. ] (]) 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Seeing as Wikinews is created by contributors, I think for practical purposes this person ''is'' Wikinews. ]&nbsp;] 12:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::We can help with research needed to answer questions arising anywhere, including at other ]s. &nbsp;--] 12:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: ... "The 12-strong bloc proposed an immediate 21-day pause in fighting" ... "The joint statement was signed" ... "It followed a meeting of world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York". ]&nbsp;] 12:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hi, I appreciate the lookup. It was a Statement signed, yes. How and where was it delivered to the Israel and Hezbollah representatives? ] (], ]) 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't know. The article has various hints, such as "the US is negotiating with Lebanon’s government - rather than Hezbollah." I gather you're interested in the "Official responses are expected within hours" part? ]&nbsp;] 14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I was unable to find anything specific about any presentation to the Israelis, but the statement was drafted and signed at the ], so I imagine that the easiest method would be to hand it to the ]. ] (]) 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also note that ] was present at the UN at the time, so the proposal could have easily been handed over to him. ] (]) 18:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


::] was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though.
== Use of fish killed by depth charges ==
::Also ] (President of Cuba for a few hours on January 1, 1959) similarly went to Florida and died there.
::And ], ousted as President of Panama in the ], died in Florida (a pattern emerging here...)
::] (]) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:For ease of reference, the Woodlawn Cemetery in question is ], housing:
:# ], president of Cuba from 1925 to 1933
:# ], president of Cuba from 1948 to 1952
:# ], president of Nicaragua from 1967 to 1972, and from 1974 to 1979 (not to be confused with his father ] and brother ], both former presidents of Nicaragua, buried together in Nicaragua)
:] (]) 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Searching Findagrave could be fruitful. Machado's entry: ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Polish prime minister and famous musician Ignacy Paderewski had his grave in the United States until 1992. ] (]) 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
this is kind of a weird one, but during the WWII Battle of the Atlantic, are there any known instances of navy sailors collecting and eating some or all of the fish that were killed by depth charges they dropped?
::I guess not current, though... ] (]) 01:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:You can find some with the following Wikidata query: . Some notable examples are ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Note that ] died in the US but was buried in the UK. Unfortunately, the query also returns others who were presidents, governors, etc. of other than sovereign states. --] (]) 19:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:I suppose we should also consider ] as a debatable case. And ] was initially buried in the USA but later reburied in Serbia. He seems to have been the only European monarch who was at one point buried in the USA. --] (]) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:] was initially buried at Arlington. ] (]) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:
:And of course I should rather think that most monarchs of Hawaii are buried in the USA. ] (]) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{xt|Members of the crew of ] with fish taken on board killed or stunned after a depth charge attack. HMAS Doomba in her role as escort and anti-submarine vessel would sweep the harbour approaches with her ASDIC before escorting a convoy to sea and attack any threatening ASDIC returns with depth charges.}}
::If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --] (]) 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Note that once at sea with a convoy, stopping for any reason would leave an escort vessel vulnerable to attack and the convoy's merchant ships unescorted. From 1941, there were ]s which saved escorts from having to stop to pick up survivors, so I imagine that stopping to catch stunned fish would be highly unlikely. ] (]) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::] answers that question with a definitive "yes, it was". ] (]) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:] was initially buried in Cleveland, but then reburied elsewhere in Ohio. --] (]) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::To be specific, All Souls Cemetery in ] according to Smetona's article. ] (]) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:There are a number of Egyptian mummies in US museums (]), but I can't find any that are currently known to be the mummy of a pharaoh. The mummy of ] was formerly in the US, but was returned to Egypt in 2003. --] (]) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Parents' Sabbath? ==


= December 17 =
about the ] says that it is sung in Russian Orthodox churches on {{xt|"Parents’ Sabbath, a day of special remembrance for Orthodox Christians who have died"}}. Is there a Russian Misplaced Pages article that relates to this. A Google search didn't find much. ] (]) 16:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:The search term "{{lang|ru|Кондак усопших}}" does not turn up any results from the Russian Misplaced Pages. The kontakion is mentioned in on the funeral service for ], which also provides an answer to the "why" question — allegedly because Philip wanted to emphasize his kinship with the Romanovs. The Russian term for Parents’ Sabbath is {{lang|ru|Родительская суббота}}, which is more adequately translated as "Parental Saturday", of which there are several in any given year. The Russian Misplaced Pages has ], which is skimpy on the liturgy and does not mention any songs. &nbsp;--] 06:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, many thanks for your work. I'll put in a link to that article. The Kontakion of the Departed has a long history in British royal funerals, and I suspect it might have been used even if Philip hadn't had Orthodox roots (his mother, ], was an Orthodox nun; I think the Romanov link is rather tenuous but useful to Russian nationalists). ] (]) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::In another Russian link, the ] at ] is rung upon the death of senior British royals. ] (]) 22:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Another royal residence. ], once had an actual Russian Orthodox chapel. ] (]) 14:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


== Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800 ==
==Bloody codes==

The article ] says

"Magistrates charged Williams with defacing clothing—a crime that in the Bloody Code carried a harsher penalty than assault or attempted murder."

However ] says:

"Leon Radzinowicz listed 49 pages of "Capital Statutes of the Eighteenth Century" divided into 21 categories:

&hellip;

* Stabbing, maiming and shooting at any person"

Which is correct (or are they both?)

All the best: ''] ]''<small> 21:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC).</small><br />

:I don't know the answer, but the two statements are not at odds with each other. Theoretically (given just these two statements), the penalty for an attempt to strangle a person could have been a slap on the wrist, provided that the clothing of the victim was not defaced. &nbsp;--] 06:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:: says that "attempted murder" was not legally defined until Lord Ellenborough's Act (]). ] (]) 13:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


What would have been the typical extent (in square miles or square kilometers) of an English parish, circa 1800 or so? Let's say the median rather than the mean. With more interest in rural than urban parishes. -- ] (]) 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{quote|At this time, there was a sharp distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. The former category consisted of “serious” crimes punishable by death or transportation; the latter were relatively milder offenses punishable by prison, the pillory, or a public flogging. Grand larceny, for example, was a felony; minor larceny a misdemeanor. More than two hundred crimes were punishable by death, but the felons often received a pardon. Murderers were of course hanged, as were hardened thieves, highwaymen, and street robbers; other felons were most often transported to a prison colony abroad. Common assault, even with intent to maim or kill, was a misdemeanor, and Williams and his friends had hoped that the Monster’s crimes would be categorized as such.{{pb}}But, on the other hand the authorities were hard pressed to find a legal statute that made the Monster’s crime a felony, since they feared a public outrage in London if he was charged with a mere misdemeanor...{{pb}}But the magistrates and judges had discovered an obscure statute from 1721. It had been intended to repress the activities of certain weavers who objected to the importation of Indian fashions that were purchased by the public in preference to the weavers’ own goods. The weavers actually poured aquafortis on the clothes of people wearing these foreign fashions. To stop these outrages, it was made a felony, punishable by transportation for seven years, to "assault any person in the public streets, ''with intent'' to tear, spoil, ''cut'', burn, or deface, the garments or cloaths of such person, provided ''the act'' be done in pursuance of such intention."|source={{cite book|last=Bondeson|first=Jan|authorlink=Jan Bondeson|year=2001|title=The London Monster|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|page=85}}}}


:There were tensions involved in a unit based on the placement of churches being tasked to administer the poor law; that was why "civil parishes" were split off a little bit later... ] (]) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:There's also some discussion in ] . ](]) 23:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:] As a start the mean area of a parish in England and Wales in around 1832 seems to have been around 5.6 square miles.
:{{small|Man, the Fashion Police were a lot stricter in those days. ] wouldn't have lasted a day. ] (]) 01:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Source . It also has figures by county if you are interested.
:*p.494 38,498,572 acres, i.e. 60,154 square miles
:*p.497 10,674 parishes and parochial chapelries
:*Average 3,607 acres, i.e. 5.64 square miles ] (]) 02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you -- that's a starting point, at least! -- ] (]) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:::But regionally variable:
= October 2 =
:::{{xt|By the early nineteenth century the north-west of England, including the expanding cities of Manchester and Liverpool, had just over 150 parishes, each of them covering an average of almost 12,000 acres, whereas the more rural east of the country had more than 1,600 parishes, each with an average size of approximately 2,000 acres.}}
:::
:::] (]) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


::::{{xt|On the contrary , in England , which contains 38,500,000 statute acres, the parishes or ]s comprehend about 3,850 acres the average; and if similar allowance be made for those livings in cities and towns , perhaps about 4,000.}}
== Philip II of Spain and his 1565 decision on theatre ==
::::
::::The point about urban parishes distorting the overall average is supported by ] for instance, that had a parish of only 3 acres (or two football pitches of 110 yards by 70 yards placed side by side). ] (]) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, that's great info -- ty! I can't seem to get a look at the content of the book. Does it say anything else about other regions? -- ] (]) 23:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The OCR book doesn't mention other regions. I have found where the figure of 10,674 came from: has a note that {{tq|Preliminary Observations ( p . 13. and 15. ) to the Popu-lation Returns in 1811 ; where the Parishes and Parochial Chapelries are stated at 10,674 .}} The text of page 112 says that {{tq|churches are contained in be-tween 10 , and 11,000 parishes † ; and probably after a due allowance for consolidations , & c . they constitute the Churches of about 10,000 Parochial Benefices}}, so the calculation on p.165 of the 1816 essay is based on around 10,000 parishes in England (and Wales) in 1800 (38,500,000 divided by 3,850). ] (]) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: The primary source is and the table of parishes by county is on page xxix. ] (]) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you! -- ] (]) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Parishes, like political constituencies etc, were in theory decided by the number of inhabitants, not the area covered. What the average was at particular points, I don't know. No doubt it rose over recent centuries as the population expanded, but rural parishes generally did not. ] (]) 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::But whatever the population changes, the parish boundaries in England (whether urban or rural) remained largely fixed between the 12th and mid-19th centuries. ] (]) 13:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Right, I'm not asking because I thought parish boundaries had been drawn to equalize the geographic area covered or I wanted to know how those boundaries came about. I'm asking because I'm curious what would have been typical in terms of geographic area in order to better understand certain aspects of the society of the time.
::For instance, how far (and thus how long) would people have to travel to get to their church? How far might they live from other people who attended the same church? How far would the rector/vicar/curate have to range to attend to his parishioners in their homes?
::Questions like that. Does that make the reason for this particular inquiry make more sense? -- ] (]) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::: had a similar question and the answer there suggested ]’s ''Churches and Churchmen in Medieval Europe'' (1999) . You may find the first chapter, '' Rural Ecclesiastical Institutions in England : The Search for their Origins'' interesting. ] (]) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the link!
::::Fwiw, I'm not really seeing any answers to questions of actual geographic extent in that first chapter, mostly info on the "how they came to be" that, again, isn't really the focus of the question. Or maybe the info I'm looking for is in the pages that are omitted from the preview?
::::The rest of the book is clearly focused on a much earlier period than I'm interested in (granted, parish boundaries may not have changed much between the start of the Reformation and the Georgian era, but culture, practices, and the relationship of most people to their church and parish certainly would have!) -- ] (]) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The chapter is relevant to how far people had to travel in the middle ages, which I can see is not the period you are interested in. ] (]) 21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, it looks to me as if the pages I need are probably among the unavailable ones, then. Oh well. Thank you for the suggestion regardless! -- ] (]) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:One last link, the introduction of which might be helpful, describing attempts to create new parishes for the growing population in the early 19th century (particularly pp. 19-20):
The reputation of Philip II of Spain, an actor of the counter-reformation, for rigor in religious, political and social matters leads me to ask this question: Could you give me the reason why Philip II of Spain decided to authorize in 1565 the creation of permanent brotherhoods with buildings for the representation of comedies?
:
This information appears in various places including
I am looking for reliable sources. Thank you already for your answer. ] (]) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) (sorry for my bad english) :] (]) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== When was the first bat mitzvah? ==
: Don't have an answer, but there seems to be some academic literature on the topic. You might find something in: Suárez García, José Luis. “La licitud del teatro en el reinado de Felipe II. Textos y pretextos”, ''XXI Jornadas de Teatro Clásico''. Almagro, 1998, pp. 219-251. ] ] 10:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)


] has a short history section, all of which is about bar mitzvah. When was the first bat mitzvah? What is its history? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. A French-speaking Wikipedian gave me some references . Have a nice day, ] (]) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)


:To be clear, I am more asking when the bat mitzvah ritual became part of common Jewish practice. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::], you may be interested in which describes how religious brotherhoods or ''cofradías de socorro'' petitioned the king for licences for theatrical performances to increase their income, as charitable donations alone could not fulfil the demand for the hospitals, orphanages and homeless hostels that the brotherhoods provided (p. 20 onwards). ] (]) 17:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:Parts from Google's translation of ]:
:::OK Thanks. I 'll read that this evening or to-morrow. Good night, ] (]) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::As early as the early 19th century, in the early days of Reform Judaism, confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls began to be held in which their knowledge of the religion was tested, similar to that practiced among Christians. It spread to the more liberal circles of German Jewry, and by the middle of the century had also begun to be widespread among the Orthodox bourgeoisie. Rabbi Jacob Etlinger of Altona was forced by the community's regulations to participate in such an event in 1867, and published the sermon he had prepared for the purpose later. He emphasized that he was obligated to do so by law, and that Judaism did not recognize that the principles of the religion should be adopted in such a public declaration, since it is binding from birth. However, as part of his attempt to stop the Reform, he supported a kind of parallel procedure that was intended to take place exclusively outside the synagogue.
::The idea of confirmation was not always met with resistance, especially with regard to girls: the chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of French Jews, Shlomo Zalman Ullmann, permitted it for both sexes in 1843. In 1844, confirmation for young Jews was held for the first time in Verona, Italy. In the 1880s, Rabbi Zvi Hermann Adler agreed to the widespread introduction of the ceremony, after it had become increasingly common in synagogues, but refused to call it 'confirmation'. In 1901, Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor, cantor in Alexandria, permitted it for both boys and girls, inspired by what was happening in Italy. Other rabbis initially ordered a more conservative event.
::At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude towards the bat mitzvah party was reserved, because it was sometimes an attempt to imitate symbols drawn from the confirmation ceremony, and indeed there were rabbis, such as Rabbi Aharon Volkin, who forbade the custom on the grounds of gentile laws, or who treated it with suspicion, such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who in a 1950s recantation forbade holding an event in the synagogue because it was "a matter of authority and a mere vanity...there is no point and no basis for considering it a matter of a mitzvah and a mitzvah meal". The Haredi community also expressed strong opposition to the celebration of the bat mitzvah due to its origins in Reform circles. In 1977, Rabbi Yehuda David Bleich referred to it as one of the "current problems in halakhah", noting that only a minority among the Orthodox celebrate it and that it had spread to them from among the Conservatives.
::On the other hand, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, rabbis began to encourage holding a Bat Mitzvah party for a daughter, similar to a party that is customary for a son, with the aim of strengthening observance of the mitzvot among Jewish women.
:&nbsp;--] 11:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you! Surprising how recent it is. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


= December 18 =
== Military ambulance and rescue ships in WW2 ==


== Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century ==
Why were (and still are?) ambulance and rescue ships in WW2 not given Geneva Convention protections? It seems such protections were not even sought. I'm using as a source on ambulance ships being armed, and in part yesterday's reply on ] by ], to get me curious that ]s were also armed (which seems triply odd to me given their reported war stats).


Our only relevant article to ambulance ships (not ]s) seems to be {{slink|Ambulance#Military use}}, which does not cover the issue. The armed unmarked ambulance use cases are for modern urban warfare, and ships seem antithetical to that, particularly as hospital ships and coastal rescue are protected classes that exist at the same time and place as ambulance ships. ] (]) 18:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC) What would be the most important feminist victories prior to the 18th and 19th centuries? I'm looking for specific laws or major changes (anywhere in the world), not just minor improvements in women's pursuit of equality. Something on the same scale and importantance as the women's suffrage. ] (]) 11:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not aware of any occuring without being foreseable a set of conditions such as the perspective of a minimal equal representation both in the judiciary and law enforcement. Those seem to be dependent on technological progress, maybe particularly law enforcement although the judiciary sometimes heavily relies on recording capabilities. Unfortunately ] is not very explicitly illustrating the genesis of its sociological dynamics. --] (]) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Before universal male suffrage became the norm in the 19th century, also male ]s did not pull significant political weight, at least in Western society, so any feminist "victories" before then can only have been minor improvements in women's rights in general. &nbsp;--] 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Changes regarding divorce, property rights of women, protections against sexual assault or men's mistreatment of women could have have been significant, right? (Though I don't know what those changes were) ] (]) 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think many of those were widely, significantly changed prior to the 18th century, though the World is large and diverse, and history is long, so it's difficult to generalise. See ]. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 11:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:In the English monarchy, when ] died in 1135 with no living male legitimate child, ] followed over whether ] or ] should inherit the throne. (It was settled by ].) But in 1553 when ] died, ] inherited the throne and those who objected did it on religious grounds and not because she was a woman: in fact there was an attempt to place ] on the throne instead. --] (]) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{cite web|at=Commentary of 2017|title=Introduction (2017 Commentary)|series=Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.|website=International Humanitarian Law Databases|publisher=International Committee of the Red Cross|url=https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/introduction/commentary/2017}} paragraphs 83-91 might be a good starting point, but don't have time to look further right now. ](]) 19:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Although Mary's detractors believed that her ] was a result of her gender; a point made by the ] reformer ], who published a ] entitled '']''. When the Protestant ] inherited the throne, there was a quick about face; Elizabeth was compared to the Biblical ], who had freed the Israelites from the ]ites and led them to an era of peace and prosperity, and was obviously a divine exception to the principle that females were unfit to rule. ] (]) 12:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, but as a starting point it just raises the same "why not" question. It indicates the last maritime IHL treaty in force for the major powers of WW2 was , which states plainly in Article 1 that a "military hospital ship" is any ship assigned "specially and solely with a view to assisting the wounded, sick and shipwrecked". (Article 16 further seems to indicate that rescue should be accommodated regardless of ship.) So the specialized rescue and ambulance ships can be protected as such, and the USMRC article indicates that marked hospital ships were honored by U-boats, so I'm again asking why they didn't even try to mark rescue and ambulance ships? ] (]) 22:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:A possibly fictional account in the film ] has the proto-feminist ] anticipating ] orbits about two millenia before that gentleman, surely a significant feminine achievement. ] (]) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{xt|"The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies: It inflates Hypatia's achievements and incorrectly portrays her as finding a proof of Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever studied."}} (from our Hypatia article linked above). ] (]) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Even if true (we have no proof she did not embrace the heliocentric model while developing the theory of gravitation to boot), it did not result in a major change in the position of women. &nbsp;--] 03:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: To some extent it is going to depend on what is considered a "feminist victory".
:::: There has steadily been more evidence of numerous female Viking warriors, and similarly the ] in Japan.
:::: Many Native American tribal cultures had strong roles for women. Iroquois women, for example, played the major role in appointing and removing chiefs (though the chiefs were all male, as far as we know).
:::: And, of course, a certain number of women have, one way or another, achieved a great deal in a society that normally had little place for female achievement, though typically they eventually were brought down one way or another. Besides queens regnant and a number of female regents (including in the Roman Empire), two examples that leap to mind are ] and ]. - ] &#124; ] 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Intolerance by D. W. Griffith ==
:::{{EC}} I don't know the answer, but my suspicion is that it's connected with the British policy of shooting down German rescue flying-boats during the Battle of Britain (described at ]), and that consequently the Germans were highly unlikely to respect any claimed immunity from attack and so the ships might as well be defensively armed. ] (]) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Note also that in the 1982 Falklands War, the survey ship {{HMS|Hecla|A133}} was converted into an ambulance ship and ; so the decision not to do this in WWII must have been peculiar to the circumstances of that conflict, rather than a long-term policy. ] (]) 22:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Another thought (after re-reading our article) is that there is a requirement in the Hague Convention for a belligerent to advise the location of any hospital ship. As a convoy's route and location was a secret on which the survival of the convoy depended, giving away that information to the enemy would be undesirable, to say the least. ] (]) 22:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I had pulled up the Hague X text and I don't see where it says anything resembling a rule like "Belligerents will establish the location of a hospital ship". It says that the ships' names must be shared. (The seenotdienst article is interesting, as it indicates that sea rescue of pilots at least was not a high priority for the Brits for quite a while, but ship rescue would still be quite different.) ] (]) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think you're right, perhaps we should remove that bullet point from the list? I have added a "dubious" template. ] (]) 16:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::So not why were rescue ships not afforded protections under the conventions, but why were rescue ships not designated Hospital Ships under the existing conventions?{{pb}}On "Ambulance Ship" this might just be the usage of the term. There was a need for ships that carried out the same functions of caring for wounded and transporting from the theater of operations to interior zones but ''were'' armed and could perform other duties. As the reference you were using pointed out there were no US hospital ships mid-1942. There was at least initially debate on the issues and inter-service rivalry. The army wanted Hospital Ships but in the Pacific the navy was unsure if the Japanese would respect the convention and they wanted ships which could operate tactically with the fleet and were armed for protection. Also remember that there was a critical shortage of Allied shipping, if you designate a hull as a Hospital Ship it cannot perform other functions. Can't find a definitive source here but will keep looking.{{pb}}For the ]s i'll try and get access to and but one thing that is probably missing from the article is Doenitz' order to specifically target them{{quote|To each convoy a so-called rescue ship is generally attached, a special vessel up to 3,000 tons which is designed to take aboard the shipwrecked after U-boat attacks. These ships are in most cases equipped with catapult planes and large motor boats. …They are heavily armed with depth charge throwers and very maneuverable, and are often taken for U-boat traps by commanders. In view of the fact that the annihilation of ships and crews is desired, their sinking is of great importance.|source={{cite web|title=The Trial of Admiral Doenitz|publisher=Naval History and Heritage Command|url=https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/t/the-trial-of-admiral-doenitz.html}}}}It might be that a calculation was made that a small ship operating at the rear of the convoy was much too valuable for defense of the convoy to designate as a Hospital Ship. Would the Germans believe that such a vessel might not for instance radio other ships if they spotted a submarine, try and salvage ships, or assist the convoy in some other way? If the allies had some ships that were operating as Hospital Ships that the Germans might not consider completely legitimate would it endanger all Hospital Ships or give ammunition for them to claim that the allies were not respecting the conventions? Sorry about the reference free answer, but will look for more later. ](]) 16:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::As far as I can tell, British rescue ships were (despite what Doenitz believed) only fitted with light guns, the same as any other ].
::::One Geneva Convention requirement which might be relevant here is the last clause of Article 5:
::::{{xt|The ships and boats above mentioned which wish to ensure by night the freedom from interference to which they are entitled, must, subject to the assent of the belligerent they are accompanying, take the necessary measures to render their special painting sufficiently plain.}}
::::In other words, designated hospital ships needed to be illuminated at night. As the great majority of U-boat attacks took place after dark, this would be problematic, as it would give away the position of the whole convoy.
::::] (]) 08:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't interpret that as that they ''need'' to be illuminated at night. Just that if they don't want to be protected at night, they need to be sufficiently visible. It seems to imply that you can be fine as a named hospital ship that is visible and protected by day, and less-visible and unprotected by night. It also is explicit that if you are in a convoy ("the belligerent they are accompanying"), and the convoy tells you to be invisible at night, you need to be invisible, and that will not jeopardize your protection during the daytime either. ] (]) 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::So there was not much point in seeking protection that would only apply in daylight, because the risk of attack was at night. ] (]) 19:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


Why did ] make the film ] after making the very popular and racist film ]? What did he want to convey? ] (]) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{quote|At first sight, it may seem strange that, confronted with the need to inaugurate a Rescue Service for the victims of the German submarine offensive against merchant shipping, the Admiralty did not fit out a number of hospital ships to cruise in the areas where the Uboats were active, ready to pick up survivors. In theory, provided they carried the markings and behaved as required by the Hague Convention of 1907, they should have been perfectly safe, and this would have been an admirable solution to the problem. Larger ships could have been used. These would not have suffered in the same way as the Rescue Ships from the savage buffeting of the elements, and possibly their facilities would have been better. There were, however, several reasons why hospital ships were not used.{{pb}}In the First World War, Germany had refused to grant immunity from attack to hospital ships in the English Channel, parts of the North Sea and in the Mediterranean, even if their identify had been notified. Similarly, during the Second World War, from the outbreak of hostilities, it was known that Germany, under Hitler’s dictatorship, took little stock of international agreements unless it was to their advantage, illustrated by the occasions when Germany, and later Italy, disregarded the provisions of the Hague Convention: by the middle of 1941 no fewer than 13 hospital ships and carriers had been sunk, although all had been clearly marked as such.{{pb}}The nine hospital ships were...{{pb}}The British Government therefore had every reason to distrust the use of hospital ships in dealing with casualties on the high seas. In any case, under the regulations a hospital ship had to be lighted up at night. This meant that she could not keep close touch with a convoy without giving away its position to any U-boats which might be lying in wait. Yet, as we have seen, the speed with which a rescue could be effected was more often than not a matter of life or death. So if the rescuing ship was not in company with the victim of the attack, her usefulness would have been reduced.{{pb}}Thus the arguments against fitting out and employing hospital ships for use with the convoys were decisive and their use was never given serious consideration. There was, however, a suggestion that fitting the Rescue Ships with HF/DF equipment with which to locate U-boats was perhaps somewhat unethical, having regard to the main purpose for which Rescue Ships were needed. But the ships neither claimed nor received any immunity from attack, so the Admiralty felt perfectly justified in using them for any purpose they had in mind, provided it did not interfere with their primary task of rescuing the survivors of torpedoed vessels. Rescue Ships became, in fact, part and parcel of the anti-submarine effort required to ensure the safety of that merchant shipping so vital to the prosecution of the war, and they accepted – like any other ship of a convoy and its escort – the risk of being sunk.|source={{cite book|last=Schofield|first=B.B.|year=2024|orig-year=1968|title=The Rescue Ships and the Convoys}}}}
:for the Admiralty opinion, or at least Vice-admiral Schofield's. If you are thinking of article content here a warning that Schofield is a pretty scattered account, reads more like a first draft than a careful work. The confusing "nine hospital ships" paragraph i elided was however due to a later editors amendment in my edition. ](]) 16:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like Hague 1998 would require a trip to the stacks at a university library. ](]) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


:The lead of our article states that, in numerous interviews, Griffith made clear that the film was a rebuttal to his critics and he felt that they were, in fact, the intolerant ones. &nbsp;--] 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
= October 3 =
::<small>For not tolerating his racism? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::Precisely. Griffith thought he was presenting the truth, however unpopular, and that the criticism was meant to stifle his voice, not because the opinions he expressed were wrong but because they were unwelcome. &nbsp;--] 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Catherine of Aragon a virgin? == == Term for awkward near-similarity ==


Is there a term for the feeling produced when two things are nearly but not quite identical, and you wish they were either fully identical or clearly distinct? I think this would be reminiscent of ], but applied to things like design or aesthetics – or like a broader application of the ] (which is specific to imitation of humans). --] (]) 20:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Was ] really a virgin when she married ]? Was her previous marriage to ] really unconsummated? ] (]) 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)


:The uncanniness of the ] would be a specific subclass of this. &nbsp;--] 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given that Prince Arthur was only 15 at the time of his death, it is not inconceivable that he and Catherine never had sex. That was certainly the argument that Henry put forward in order to marry her.
:Of course that argument was reversed when it came time for him to seek an annulment/divorce. ] (]) 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:It's probably something that will never be answered.
:] in his book, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII, argues that Catherine had been brought up to know the politics involved and what was needed to achieve her goals.
:] in her book, The Six Wives of Henry VIII was of the opinion that Catherine was a pious woman who wouldn't have entertained lying about this, and certainly wouldn't have gone to her death bed maintaining that lie.
:Athur, Prince of Wales was said to have reported the morning after 'it was thirsty work' (I don't have the exact quote to hand), whereas Catherines maids reported sexual intercourse didn't happen.
:Make of that what you will. ] (]) 19:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::Only 15? This was in the Middle Ages. ] (]) 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{small|Rounde ye backe of ye bike shedde?}} ] (]) 08:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Didn't dynastic consummations have to be witnessed? ] (]) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Alansplodge}} Not usually, at least not at that period in time. They were 'put to bed' by a contingent of courtiers/religious figures/relatives and left to it.
::::Sometimes there were people that 'hung around' to ensure things 'were underway'. (I've no idea why I'm reverting to Euphemisms). ] (]) 10:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::They had lots of ways of faking things, such as a maid passing the bride a vial of rabbit's blood to be splashed on the sheets. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 11:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


== Yearbooks ==
:{{small|Only Catherine knows for sure, and she ain't talkin'. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)}}


Why ]s are often named '''after''' years that they concern? For example, a yearbook that concerns year 2024 and tells statistics about that year might be named '''2025''' Yearbook, with 2024 Yearbook instead concerning 2023? Which is the reason for that? --] (]) 21:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
In ], Catherine denied many times that she ever consummated her marriage to Arthur. But in the final episode, she confessed to Henry/Harry about consummating their marriage. ] (]) 19:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{small|That proves it! :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)}}


:It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
= October 5 =
:One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever. &nbsp;--] 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:In the example of a high school yearbook, 2025 would be the year in which the 2024-2025 school year ended and the students graduated. Hence, "the Class of 2025" though the senior year started in 2024. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== pAmherst 63 full transcription ==
:The purpose of a yearbook is to highlight the past year activities, for example a 2025 yearbook is to highlight the activities of 2024. ] (]) 06:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Are there any yearbooks that are named after the same years that they concern, e.g. 2024 yearbook concerning 2024, 2023 yearbook concerning 2023 etc. --] (]) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A professional baseball team will typically have a "2024 Yearbook" for the current season, since the entire season occurred in 2024. Though keep in mind that the 2024 yearbook would have come out at the start of the season, hence it actually covers stats from 2023 as well as rosters and schedules for 2024. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In the UK, the magazine '']'' releases an annual at the end of every year which is named in this way. It stands out from all the other comic/magazine annuals on the rack which are named after the following year. I worked in bookselling for years and always found this interesting. ] (]) 11:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Distinguish between ] (for predictions) and ] (for recollections). ¨] (]) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


= December 21 =
Kister 2019<ref name="l520">{{cite journal | last=Kister | first=Menahem | title=Psalm 20 and Papyrus Amherst 63: A Window to the Dynamic Nature of Poetic Texts | journal=Vetus Testamentum | publisher=Brill | volume=70 | issue=3 | date=2019-09-09 | issn=0042-4935 | doi=10.1163/15685330-12341400 | pages=426–457}}</ref> has a few lines of ] in plain square script, is there similar somewhere for the whole document? I can't find one in any script.
] (]) 16:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)


== Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source? ==
:{{Grey|(from the source's sources)}} If (free academia.edu account required) doesn't have what you're looking for, {{OCLC|1025256342}} might be the other option (it only turned up in academic libraries for my location, but you can often just uh walk in there if you have a backpack). I looked into some of the older sources the source cites: Steiner 1983 doesn't have it; {{doi|10.1086/370721}} {{em|might}}, but University of Chicago does not grant TWL access to that eighty-year-old paper, as if anyone who had anything to do with the research or original publication were still alive to profit from it. Got no results from either the British Museum or the JP Morgan Museum, each of which were said by one source or another to house the physical document. ] (]) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::Wow, thanks! I'll take a look.
::] (]) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::Steiner does say there are likely careless errors in the first column, the transliterated Demotic. I hope his three-column attempt isn't the last. I just downloaded Van der Toorn's "Becoming Diaspora Jews" and the fact there's only a translation there seems wrong somehow, either cocky or the opposite. Like why go to all the trouble of doing all the steps yourself then fail to show your work? Steiner's is invaluable, but fallible. He's got a very "trust me" tone, but makes some far-flung extractions over simpler solutions. Anyways, I'll be poring over it for some time, and I really appreciate you going to the effort to help me. The two latter options weren't available to me.
::] (]) 03:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{U|Temerarius}}, it turns out I'm dumb and missed the obvious step of checking whether Bowman's 1944 publication was shared with {{em|Jstor}} by University of Chicago Press. Of course it had been, and {{JSTOR|542994}} does reproduce portions of the text in a script similar to the one used by the source you originally posted here. TWL does grant access to the paper via Jstor.{{pb}}As to Karel van der Toorn's 2018 book length treatment published by Ugarit-Verlag, that seems like it would be a great source to use for the article, but yeah Worldcat showed availability only in libraries at least 1300km away from me, and the two online booksellers I saw have it in stock were asking nearly $200 for a copy. The publisher's website was also malconfigured and wouldn't serve me the page about the book.{{pb}}I suppose as a last ditch effort, you might be able to email contact van der Toorn, explaining that you're an independent scholar working on the Misplaced Pages article about the subject of their recent book, but aren't able to access it to use it as a source. They {{em|may}} be willing to share sections of their author's proof with you (most academics are significantly more interested in sharing their research than in their publisher profiting from it). (I have contacted individual academics with research questions before, although not since grad school. Most are pretty busy.){{Pb}}That said, van der Toorn's own {{DOI|10.1515/zaw-2016-0037}} (2017, De Gruyter; TWL yes) states that their own {{tqq|work on papyrus Amherst 63 is based on the Chicago photographs of 1901}}, so obviously direct inspection of this historical document has been difficult for everyone. ] (]) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe I will email the professor! Thanks.
::::Is there a way to download the high resolution at the Morgan library's site? Other than pixel-perfect is asking for a headache. I'd screenshot and stitch but there's no view at 100% button. https://www.themorgan.org/manuscript/318272
::::] (]) 16:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: resolves the 3.2MP version. Unsure if they have a higher resolution somewhere; you might be able to use photo manipulation to help the glyphs stand out better from the papyrus ground. ] (]) 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Click 'zoom' and it goes bigger with no jpg download. But it looks like it does go to 100% and max out there, after all, so I can pan and stitch. Worth the effort.
::::::] (]) 16:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Re: U Chicago Press, God, it seems my Misplaced Pages library account was--it says permission denied, I'm not allowed to do that, did not receive a valid oauth response. I used to have access.
:::::::] (]) 16:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm able to access University of Chicago Press via TWL, but they're pretty selective about which publications our institutional subscription can access. From a pretty vague test search, it seems like around ⅓ of their content is still locked for us. ] (]) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


I once read in a ] article (or it might have been in one of his short columns) that the ] or one of its departments used "Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta" as a motto, but it turned out this was completely (if unintentionally, at least on Will's part) made up. Does anyone else remember George Will making that claim? Regardless, has anyone any idea how George Will may have mis-heard or mis-remembered it? (I could never believe that he intentionally made it up.) Anyway, does anyone know the source of the phrase, or at least an earliest source. (Obviously it may have occurred to several people independently.) The earliest I've found on Google is a 2007 article in the MIT Technology Review. Anything earlier? ] (]) 04:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Richard C. Steiner's writings are downloadable from https://repository.yu.edu/ , but I'm not sure if there's an overall listing page. I actually have a PDF of Steiner and Nims 1983 on my hard drive, but I didn't make the connection with the alphanumeric reference "pAmherst 63" until Steiner's name was mentioned... ] (]) 17:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
: describes it as "] motto" and uses the reference {{tq|J. Bell, ‘Legal Theory in Legal Education – “Everything you can do, I can do meta…”’, in: S. Eng (red.), Proceedings of the 21st IVR World Congress: Lund (Sweden), 12-17 August 2003, Wiesbaden: Frans Steiner Verlag, p. 61.}}. ] (]) 05:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Wow, he wrote a lot of papers. Thanks for linking, there's some stuff you won't find anywhere.
:In his book ''I've Been Thinking'', ] writes: '{{tq|Doug Hofstadter and I once had a running disagreement about who first came up with the quip “Anything you can do I can do meta”; I credited him and he credited me.}}'<sup></sup> Dennett credited Hofstadter (writing ''meta-'' with a hyphen) in ''Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds'' (1998).<sup></sup> Hofstadter disavowed this claim in ''I am a Strange Loop'', suggesting that the quip was Dennett's brainchild, writing, '{{tq|To my surprise, though, this “motto” started making the rounds and people quoted it back to me as if I had really thought it up and really believed it.}}'<sup></sup>
::] (]) 02:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:It is, of course, quite possible that this witty variation on Irving Berlin's "]" was invented independently again and again. In 1979, ] wrote, in an article in ''Duke Law Journal'': '{{tq|My colleague, Leon Lipson, once described a certain species of legal writing as, “Anything you can do, I can do meta.”}}'<sup></sup> (Quite likely, John Bell (mis)quoted ].) For other, likely independent examples, in 1986, it is used as the title of a technical report stressing the importance of metareasoning in the domain of machine learming (Morik, Katharina. ''Anything you can do I can do meta''. Inst. für Angewandte Informatik, Projektgruppe KIT, 1986), and in 1995 we find this ascribed to cultural anthropologist ].<sup></sup> &nbsp;--] 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:(ec) He may have been mixing this up with "That's all well and good and practice, but how does it work in theory?" which is associated with the University of Chicago and attributed to ], who is a professor there. ]<small>]</small> 14:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Did Sir John Hume get entrapped in his own plot (historically)? ==
{{reflist-talk}}


In Shakespeare's "First Part of the Contention..." (First Folio: "Henry VI Part 2") there's a character, Sir John Hume, a priest, who manages to entrap the Duchess of Gloucester in the conjuring of a demon, but then gets caught in the plot and is sentenced to be "strangled on the gallows".
= October 6 =


My question: Was Sir John Hume, the priest, a historical character? If he was, did he really get caught in the plot he laid for the Duchess, and end up being executed?
== Physical geography ==


Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play:
P ] (]) 07:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


In Act 1, Scene 2 Sir John Hume and the Duchess of Gloucester are talking about using Margery Jordan "the cunning witch of Eye" and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, to raise a spirit that will answer the Duchess's questions. It is clear Hume is being paid by the Duke of Suffolk to entrap the Duchess. His own motivation is not political but simple lucre.
: Identify which area of your homework this is. -- ] </sup></span>]] 07:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


In Act 1, Scene 4 the witch Margery Jordan, John Southwell and Sir John Hume, the two priests, and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, conjure a demon (Asnath) in front of the Duchess of Gloucester in order that she may ask him questions about the fate of various people, and they all get caught and arrested by the Duke of York and his men. (Hume works for Suffolk and Cardinal Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, not for York, so it is not through Hume that York knows of these goings on, but York on his part was keeping a watch on the Duchess)
== Identity of a painting ==


Act 2, Scene 3 King Henry: (to Margery Jordan, John Southwell, Sir John Hume, and Roger Bolingbroke) "You four, from hence to prison back again; / From thence, unto the place of execution. / The witch in Smithfield shall be burned to ashes, / And you three shall be strangled on the gallows."
There's a discussion on Commons here: about if a painting is ] or ]. Knowledgeable views welcome. ] (]) 10:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:], I am not knowledgeable, but I have provided some information anyway. ] (]) 15:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


] (]) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Old Manipur maps? ==


:John Home or Hume (Home and Hume are pronounced identically) was ]'s confessor. According to and "Home, who had been indicted only for having knowledge of the activities of the others, was pardoned and continued in his position as canon of Hereford. He died in 1473." He does not seem to have been Sir John. I'm sure someone who knows more than me will be along soon. ] (]) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Anyone knows where online it would be possible to find some good maps of ] from 1950s or 1960s, in which administrative division borders like tehsils, circles, subdivisions, panas could be found? My google search didn't come up with anything good so far. -- ] (]) 17:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::At this period "Sir" (and "Lady") could still be used as a vague title for people of some status, without really implying they had a knighthood. ] (]) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Identically /hjuːm/ (HYOOM), to be clear. ]&nbsp;] 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, and the '']'' is Henry Sixt Part II, not Part I! We also have articles about ] and ], the Witch of Eye. ] (]) 16:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. I corrected it now. ] (]) 20:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::There's also an article for a ]. In Shakespeare he is "John Southwell". The name "John Southwell" does appear in the text of the play itself (it is mentioned by Bolingbroke). I haven't checked if the quarto and the folio differ on the name. His dates seem to be consistent with this episode and ] does refer to the other priest as "Thomas Southwell". But nothing is mentioned in the article ] itself, so that article may be about some other priest named Thomas Southwell. In any case ] points out that only Roger Bolingbroke and Margery Jourdemayne were executed in connection with this affair. Shakespeare has them all executed. He must have been in a bad mood when he wrote that passage. Either that, or he just wanted to keep things simple. ] (]) 11:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think that may well be our Southwell, according to "</nowiki> the person <nowiki></nowiki> of Syn Stevynnys in Walbroke, whyche that was one of the same fore said traytours <nowiki></nowiki>, deyde in the Toure for sorowe.]" The ''Chronicle of Gregory'', written by ] is ] (]) 12:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Some experienced editor may then want to add these facts to his article, possibly using the Chronicle of Gregory as a source. ] (]) 12:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


= December 22 =
:I've spent some time looking, and have also come up empty. The National Archives of India at only seem to have digitised cartographic material through the late 1800s. Archive.org hosts but this was published 1949. The ''National Atlas of India'' (1959, ed. S.P. Chatterjee) seems like a promising source, but I haven't found it digitised anywhere. The ''National Atlas'' has many further editions and supplementa, none of which appear to be available online. I haven't done a thorough TWL search, but maybe that's the next step. ] (]) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


= October 7 = == Mike Johnson ==


I saw ] on TV a day or two ago. (He was speaking from some official podium ... I believe about the recent government shutdown possibility, the Continuing Resolution, etc.) I was surprised to see that he was wearing a ]. The color of the yarmulke was a close match to the color of Johnson's hair, so I had to look closely and I had to look twice. I said to myself "I never knew that he was Jewish". It bothered me, so I looked him up and -- as expected -- he is not Jewish. Why would he be wearing a yarmulke? Thanks. ] (]) 07:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== number of people on ship ==


:Presumably to show his support for Israel and anti-semitism (and make inroads into the traditional Jewish-American support for the Democratic Party). Trump wore one too. ] (]) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
says 78 and says 75. Why? (it's for ]). ] (], ]) 05:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


:Only the initial statement in the first source says 78; all of the updates there say 75. ] (]) 09:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC) :: OK, thanks. I did not know that was a "thing". To wear one to show support. First I ever heard of that or seen that. Thanks. ] (]) 13:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::: He may also have just come from, or be shortly going to, some (not necessarily religious) event held in a synagogue, where he would wear it for courtesy. I would do the same, and have my (non-Jewish) grandfather's kippah, which he wore for this purpose not infrequently, having many Jewish friends. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:: I assume you mis-spoke: ''to show his support for ... anti-semitism''. ] (]) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Vault of Horror ==
:It is somewhat customary, also for male goyim, to don a yarmulke when visiting a synagogue or attending a Jewish celebration or other ceremony, like Biden while lecturing at a synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia (and under him Trump while groping the ]). Was Johnson speaking at a synagogue? &nbsp;--] 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::It may have been . &nbsp;--] 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Precisely, {{u|Lambian}}. Here is Johnson's . ] (]) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This year Hanukkah begins unusually late in the Gregorian calendar, starting at sundown on December 25, when Congress will not be in session. This coincidence can be described by the portmanteau ]. So, the Congressional observance of Hanukkah was ahead of schedule this year. Back in 2013, Hanukkah arrived unusually early, during the US holiday of ], resulting in the portmanteau of ]. ] (]) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::When you want to check the correlation between Jewish and Christian holidays, you can use the fact that Orthodox Christian months almost always correspond to Jewish months. For Chanucah, the relevant correlation is Emma/Kislev. From the table ], in 2024 (with ] 11) ''Emma'' began on 3 December, so 24 ''Emma'' is 26 December. ] (]) 15:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


Thanks, all! Much appreciated! ] (]) 02:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The "Bargain in Death" segment of the Amicus anthology film '']'' is very obviously cribbed from the ] short story "One Summer Night". Can anyone find a ] that we could use in the article to say so? Thank you, ] (]) 20:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


== Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol ==
:I'm sure you're already aware of this, but just to cover all the bases: the intermediate step of course is the comic book '']'' #28 from Feb/Mar 1952, which is where the movie got its direct inspiration from. ] is, in my experience, more studied than Amicus, which is now mostly forgotten (I'm a fan, but they and Tigon tend to get overshadowed or lumped-in with their more famous contemporary, Hammer). So, my suggestion is to establish that connection (Bierce => EC). The original credits unfortunately do not help. It's user-edited like WP, so the Grand Comics Database won't qualify as a ] anyway, but their write up claims ] and ] as co-plotters and Feldstein as the writer of the script. So, not a great start, but it still seems the likeliest connection. What I'd suggest is getting a hold of something like Von Bernewitz, Fred; Geissman, Grant (2000). Tales of Terror: The EC Companion or one of the other sources listed at the bottom of ] and see if you can find something there. </br>
:I'm not familiar with the Bierce work, so I can't comment directly, but EC (and their later brethren Creepy, Eerie, etc.) were ''usually'' (but not '']'') pretty good about acknowledging sources, so it's a little unusual that they didn't do that here. Any chance it's a coincidence? ] (]) 02:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Matt Deres}} Many thanks - the von Bernewitz & Geissman book is available at Archive.org, and on says ''Bargain in Death!'' is inspired by "One Summer Night" by Ambrose Bierce. You can read the Bierce story . ] (]) 10:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|DuncanHill}} If you're reading Bierce, don't miss "]". A classic! ] (]) 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Deor}} Thank you for the recommendation - I'm actually working my way through numerous horror/mystery/ghost/weird short-story anthologies I have accumulated over the years. I see that "The Death of Halpin Frayser" is in {{cite book|last=Blair|first=David|title=Gothic Short Stories|series=Wordsworth Classics|year=2002|publisher=Wordsworth Editions|isbn=1-84022-425-8}}, which is next-but-one (or two, if the latest from the British Library "Tales of the Weird" series turns up before I get to it) on my reading list. I won't read the Misplaced Pages article until I read the story. ] (]) 18:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


Who was Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol? There is only one reference online ("", 1869), and that has no further details. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Public knowledge of the FFF system in the 60s ==
:After that search engine I used insisted I was looking for a Chauveau I finally located Joseph Marie Chauveau - So the J M ''Thouveau'' item from must be one of the ] produced by that old fashioned hand-written communication they had in the past. --] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Of interest that other notice . The hand-written text scribbled on the portrait stands as 'Eveque de Sebastopolis'. Pierre-Joseph Chauveau probably, now is also mentioned as Pierre-Joseph in ..even though, Lady Amherst's Pheasant is referred, in the same, through an other missionary intermediary: . --] (]) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:Also in . Full texts are not accessible though it seems there is three times the same content in three different but more or less simultaneously published editions. ] (]) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This needs a little explanation before the actual question, which is a mix of history and science - bear with me.
::There is a stub at ] (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|Askedonty}} Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error.
:: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. Those results were in fact detailed enough that we may even document the circumstances associated with Mgr. Chauveau writing the original letter to the Society. recounts his buying of specimens in the country, then his learning about the interest for the species in British diplomatic circles about. The French text is available, with the ] servers not under excessive stress, in ''Bulletin de la Société zoologique d'acclimatation'' 2°sér t. VII aka "1870" p.502 at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb345084433/date; an other account mentioning the specific species is to be found p.194 . --] (]) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


= December 23 =
The ] (furlong-firkin-fortnight) is a humourous set of measurement units, mostly used for jokes about obscure measurement systems. I'm not sure when it was first proposed, since the article about it is lacking in historical detail.


== London Milkman photo ==
In the book The Prospect of Immortality by ], he states that "electrical signals travel essentially with the speed of light, namely about 1,560,000,000,000,000 furlongs per fortnight". There is no indication of this being a joke, and the source given for this paragraph gives the speed of light in the more typical metres per second, not furlongs per fortnight. The book is aimed towards the average layman of the 1960s (specifically "it is meant to be understandable to anyone who gets his money's worth out of a newspaper", from the foreword) and ''does'' have some humourous aspects to its writing, but it's strange to me that this measurement is used with zero explanation and zero indication that it's meant to be a joke and not a genuine way of measuring speed - Ettinger doesn't even give the speed in more usual terms afterwards.


I am writing a rough draft of ''Delivery After Raid'', also known as ''The London Milkman'' in my ]. I’m still trying to verify basic information, such as the original publication of the photo. It was allegedly first published on October 10, 1940, in ''Daily Mirror'', but it’s behind a paywall in British Newspaper Archive, but from the previews I can see, I don’t know think the photo is there. Does anyone know who originally published it or publicized it, or which British papers carried it in the 1940s? For a photo that’s supposed to be famous, it’s almost impossible to find anything about it before 1998. ] (]) 04:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
So, my question is: would the average person of the 1960s (or even an academic of the 1960s) know about the FFF system enough to know that it's a joke? And would an average person roughly know the speed of light in the 1960s without having to research it, meaning Ettinger wouldn't have to give the speed in the usual units?


:Somewhat tellingly, about this photo in ''The Times'' just writes, "{{tq|On the morning of October 10, 1940, a photograph taken by Fred Morley of Fox Photos was published in a London newspaper.}}" The lack of identification of the newspaper is not due to reluctance of mentioning a competitor, since further on in the article we read, "{{tq|... the Daily Mirror became the first daily newspaper to carry photographs ...}}". &nbsp;--] 11:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Let me know if this would be more well-suited for one of the other reference desks. ], it/he (]/]) 21:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "] Archive", which might mean it was in ]. ]&nbsp;] 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. ] (]) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? ]&nbsp;] 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. ] (]) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of ''Picture Post'' imply that it might have appeared in ''Picture Post''? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? ]&nbsp;] 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. ] (]) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton. ]&nbsp;] 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not in the ''Daily Mirror'' of Thursday 10 October 1940. ] (]) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|DuncanHill}} Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::a lot of searches suggest it was the ''Daily Mail''. ] (]) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Ping|Pigsonthewing}} I've checked the ''Mirror'' for the 11th, and the rest of the week. I've checked the ''News Chronicle'', the ''Express'', and the ''Herald'' for the 10th. ''Mail'' not on BNA. ] (]) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::As general context, from my professional experience of picture researching back in the day, photo libraries and agencies quite often tried to claim photos and other illustrations in their collections as their own IP even when they were in fact not their IP and even when they were out of copyright. Often the same illustration was actually available from multiple providers, though obviously (in that pre-digital era) one paid a fee to whichever of them you borrowed a copy from for reproduction in a book or periodical. Attributions in published material may not, therefore, accurately reflect the true origin of an image. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just discovered this for myself with Bosman 2008 in ''The National Gallery in Wartime''. In the back of the book it says the ''London Milkman'' photo is licensed from ] on p. 127. I was leaning towards reading this as an error of some kind before I saw your comment. Interestingly, the Wikpedia article on Corbis illustrates part of the problem. ] (]) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


*Are we sure it was published at the time? I haven't been able to find any meaningful suggestion of which paper it appeared in. I've found a few sources (eg ) giving a date in September. I've found several suggesting it tied in with "]", which of course was almost unknown in the War. ] (]) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've never heard of FFF, but it's patently obvious to me that "furlongs per fortnight" is a joke (I went to school in London the 1960s when furlongs were not obscure, if that's pertinent). ] (]) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
*:That's the thing. There's no direct evidence it was ever published except for a few reliable sources asserting it was. ''However'', I did find older news sources contemporaneous to the October 1940 (or thereabouts) photograph referring to it in the abstract after that date, as if it ''had'' been widely published. Just going from memory here, and this is a loose paraphrase, but one early-1940s paper on Google newspapers says something like "who can forget the image of the milkman making his deliveries in the rubble of the Blitz"? One notable missing part of the puzzle is that someone, somewhere, did an exclusive interview with Fred Morley about the photograph, and that too is impossible to find. It is said elsewhere that he traveled around the world taking photographs and celebrated his silver jubilee with Fox Photos in 1950-something. Other than that, nothing. It's like he disappeared off the face of the earth. ] (]) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::One question is whether the figure given for "furlongs per fortnight" is reasonably accurate. In school we learned that the speed of light was about 186,000 miles per second. A furlong is an eighth of a mile, so that would be 1,488,000 furlongs per second. There are 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds per day. A fortnight is 14 days, which would be 1,209,600 seconds. So the figure could be 1,488,000 x 1,209,600 = 1,799,884,800,000,000. That's considerably more than 1,560,000,000,000,000, though it's in the general neighborhood. Or is my calculation incorrect? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::], too many zeroes. 1,488,000 × 1,209,600 = 1,799,884,800,000. You gave the number of furlongs in 1,000 fortnights, i.e. about 38⅓ years. ] (]) 06:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC) *::I should also add, the Getty archive has several images of Fred Morley, one of which shows him using an extremely expensive camera for the time. ] (]) 22:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:And furthermore, I haven't found any uses of it that look like a scan from a newspaper or magazine. They all seem to use Getty's original. ] (]) 20:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Wouldn't that also then be a problem with the 1,560,000,000,000,000 figure? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hm, yes, you're right. ] (]) 21:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC) :I've searched BNA for "Fox Photo" and "Fox Photos" in 1940, and while this does turn up several photos from the agency, no milkmen are among them. ] (]) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:No relevant BNA result for "Fox Photo" plus "Morley" at any date. ] (]) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure I first heard of furlongs/fortnight in an undergraduate physics class ca. 1980. It's the kind of geeky humor which would probably have been confined to certain groups then -- though later on in the Internet era some such things have achieved wider publicity ("Pi Day" as March 14th, "unobtainium" given prominence by the Avatar movie, and so on)... ] (]) 19:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{small|Spelled "unobtanium" in the film script. &nbsp;--] 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:::Surely Pi Day is the 22nd of July? ] (]) 21:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::] -- ] (]) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Versus ]. &nbsp;--] 05:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Are they claiming 3.14 is exact? ] (]) 10:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Just before 4 PM on March 14, it will be 15.926535897932... hours on the ]. &nbsp;--] 16:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:Are y'all talking about me? ] (] / ]) 12:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


::Has anyone checked the Gale ''Picture Post'' archive for October 1940? I don't have access to it. ] (]) 22:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
= October 8 =


== Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman? ==
== Ottoman 15th century Molla Lutfî, Pl. help confirm ==


In Shakespeare's "]" (Act 3, Scene 2) Dromio of Syracuse and his master Antipholus of Syracuse discuss Nell the kitchen wench who Dromio says "is spherical, like a globe. I could find out countries in her." After asking about the location of a bunch of countries on Nell (very funny! recommended!), Antipholus ends with: "Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands?" Dromio hints "Belgia, the Netherlands" stood in her privates ("O, sir, I did not look so low.") My question is not about how adequate the comparison is but on whether "Belgia" and "the Netherlands" were the same thing, two synonymous designations for the same thing to Shakespeare (the Netherlands being the whole of the Low Countries and Belgia being just a slightly more literate equivalent of the same)? Or were "the Netherlands" already the Northern Low Countries (i.e. modern Netherlands), i.e. the provinces that had seceded about 15 years prior from the Spanish Low Countries (Union of Utrecht) while "Belgia" was the Southern Low Countries (i.e. modern Belgium and Luxembourg), i.e. the provinces that decided to stay with Spain (Union of Arras)? ] (]) 13:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
] was a 15th century Ottoman scholar, Pl. help confirm following:
:Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at ], a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later ] was the United Provinces, ] the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. ] (]) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that ] was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. ] (]) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as ], that's for sure! ] (]) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This general region was originally part of ] aka ], possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, ]'s ''Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country'' (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) ] (]) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver ], whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country <small> was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --] (]) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
]
:In Caesar's '']'', the Belgians ('']'') were separated from the Germans ('']'') by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands. &nbsp;--] 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. ] (]) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Indigenous territory/Indian reservations ==
:1) ] is different from ] ?


Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:2) Date and year of execution, RS sources I came across seem to give 1494 (possibly December 24) as date of execution where as ] seem to give January 23, 1495 as date of death please help confirm which is more likely to be correct one?


:In Suriname not as territories. There are some Amerindian villages. Their distribution can be seen on the map at {{section link|Indigenous peoples in Suriname#Distribution}}. &nbsp;--] 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:3) Molla Lutfi was executed at ] or ]?


= December 24 =
:4) The Reference number 9 in "Crafting History: Essays on the Ottoman World and Beyond in Honor of Cemal Kafadar. Germany, Academic Studies Press, 2023." refers to a letter compiled in Tokapi Palace Museum archive E 8101/1 which had complained that Lutfi to have had stolen nefis books from collection of late Sinan Pasha, who was mentor to Lutfi. A corroborating ref is preferred saying wording used in the letter meant 'stolen' since late Sinan Pasha was a close mentor of Lutfi.


== Testicles in art ==
:5) Last but not least, I would also request list of Molla Lufti's books with Arabic and roman script nomenclatures and translations of the names, if possible.
:]
What are some famous or iconic depictions of testicles in visual art (painting, sculpture, etc)? Pre 20th century is more interesting to me but I will accept more modern works as well. ] (]) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's '']'' (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. ] (]) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the ] (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the ], through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! ] (]) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The article you're looking for is ]. ] (]) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:And maybe the ]. ]|] 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:], somewhat well-known in the West through ]. ]&nbsp;] 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation? ==
] (]) 03:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


The Habsburg were descended (in the male line) from a female (empress ]). They were the Habsburg rulers of Austria because of her, not because of their Lorraine male ancestor. So their name goes against general European patrilinear naming customs. Sometimes, starting with ] they are called Habsburg-Lorraine, but that goes against the rule that the name of the father comes first (I've never heard that anyone was called Lorraine-Habsburg) and most people don't even bother with the Lorraine part, if they even know about it.
:{{U|Bookku}}, the difference between 24 December 1494 and 23 January 1495 is too great for solely Julian–Gregorian conversion to account for, but that may be part of the discrepancy. I've noticed that English language sources seem to prefer Julian where other languages tend to prefer Proleptic Gregorian. If you determine this is part of the problem, you may wish to include the other calendar's date in a footnote like we did at ] to prevent people from changing it to be "consistent" with their own language sources. ] (]) 18:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Why would any reference use Proleptic Gregorian? That's saying, "this is the date it would have been if Pope Gregory had decreed the new calendar earlier than he actually did - except he didn't". There's obviously a case for converting Julian dates to Gregorian in cases where the country concerned had not yet adopted the Gregorian calendar; that can apply from 1582 onwards. But going backwards from 1582 makes no sense; the new calendar was not retrospective, and Julian dates right up to Wednesday 4 October 1582 are correct and should not be converted. That that date was immediately followed by Thursday 15 October 1582 as the first day of the new Gregorian calendar was just a result of correcting the discrepancies that had built up over 15 centuries. There was always meant to be a disconnection, the famous 10-day gap (which increased every century the longer it took for countries to convert). -- ] </sup></span>]] 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Cultures that did not start out with the Julian calendar (], ], e.g.) have a choice to make when converting pre-Gregorian dates to use a Western calendar, and many sources make the reasonable choice of using Proleptic Gregorian for consistency and ease of calculation rather than having to remember and account for the 1582 reform. ] (]) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::(ec) In the 15th-century sources, which are written in ], all dates are given in the ]. I suppose that present-day scholars, translating such dates to a form accessible to their readership, see no reason to use another calendar that was current in the 15th century but is antiquated now. &nbsp;--] 11:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: I get what you are both saying. I suppose it makes a ''kind of'' sense if those sources are considered in isolation. But the moment you introduce events in other countries around the same times, and those countries were using the Julian calendar, hey presto! there's an instant mismatch between the dates, making it seem as if one event preceded the other by up to 10 days in real time when in fact they were coincident. That seems less than useful as an aid to scholarship. Also, the conversion they use seems to be based on the view that Julian dates up to 4 October 1582 were somehow "inaccurate" and need to be corrected. That's just not so. Yes, the calendar itself got out of synch over a period of centuries, which is why Gregory decreed a new one - but the labels that were actually given to days before then (i.e. the dates) were the ones that the entire Western world used, the only official and correct ones (which were NOT retrospectively adjusted by Gregory's reform), and to fiddle with them from the lofty perspective of 20th-21st century scholarship seems somewhat wrong-headed, imo. It may sometimes be helpful to make it clear that, e.g. 15 July 1374 was a date in the Julian calendar. That's the solution, if one were required. But to convert that to 25 July in the Proleptic Gregorian is a step too far, and in the wrong direction. -- ] </sup></span>]] 21:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


As far as I can tell this mostly occurs in states where the sovereign happens at some point to be a female. The descendants of that female sovereign (if they rule) sometimes carry her family name (how often? that must depend on how prominent the father is), though not always (cf. queen Victoria's descendants). Another example would be king James, son of Mary queen of Scots and a nobody. But sometimes this happens in families that do not rule over anything (cf. the Chigi-Zondadari in Italy who were descended from a male Zondadari who married a woman from the much more important family of the Chigi and presumably wanted to be associated with them).
:{{U|Bookku}}, according to ], {{tqq| letter was "written in the middle of the month of Cemazi the Second in the year three and seventy and nine hundred²" which roughly translates to August 1565-6.}} (Where {{tqq|²}} is a malformed {{dummy ref|2}} citing "Casale pg 70", and Casale authored two works cited...) Anyway this seems to exclude identity between the two subjects (they also have different Wikidata QIDs, although no overlapping authority control IDs to help verify). ] (]) 11:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Also the tr.wp article links ] (technically, ]; I just checked the language switcher), in re your question 3. ] (]) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::(ec) The article on the scholar on the Turkish Misplaced Pages identifies the place of execution unambiguously as the Hippodrome of Constantinople. I don't think the Covered Hippodrome was then still extant. &nbsp;--] 12:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:Gregorian calendar date January 23, 1495 corresponds to Julian calendar date January 14, 1495 <u>or 1494</u>. The uncertainty in the year is due to the fact that the new year did not everywhere start on January 1st; see {{section link|Julian calendar#New Year's Day}}. In England, March 24, 1494 was followed by March 25, 1495. Both dates fall in April 1495 with Gregorian reckoning. &nbsp;--] 05:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::Date conversions seem bit confusing to me. Trying to study and understand. ] (]) 05:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::: What's confusing is the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar. If sources actually employ this, they're doing a disservice to their readers, imo. -- ] </sup></span>]] 18:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)


What do genealogists, especially those dealing with royal genealogies, call this sort of situation? I'm looking for something that would mean in effect "switch to the mother's name", but the accepted technical equivalent if it exists.
= October 9 =


Also do you know of other such situations in European history?
== Difference between marriage in the USA and “elsewhere”? ==


In England where William (Orange) and Mary (Stuart) were joint sovereign did anyone attempt to guess what a line descended from them both would be called (before it became clear such a line would not happen)?
Hello from France to the Reference Desk Users. My « strange » question comes from the end of Andrea Dworkin's strange quote in a book about “The Economics of Sex” (I can't find the exact title): “A man wants what a woman has - her sex. He can steal it (rape), convince her to give it to him (seduction), rent it (prostitution), '''<u>lease it long-term (marriage in the US</u>'''), or '''acquire it outright (marriage in most countries of the world''').” I read that quotation in Steven Pinker's ''The Better Angels of Our Nature'' (a translated book to French).
My question concerns the words in bold.
</br>I'll take the risk of trying to answer my question: Could this be an allusion to the fact that, statistically, marriages end much (?) more often in the USA than elsewhere in divorce, followed by marriages, then divorce, then marriages, sometimes with the same person (rare in France, I think?). Thank you for your matrimonial cogitations. ] (]) 12:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:Andrea was kind of "damaged", and it's hard to tell what she thought she was getting at. But if you google "divorce rate in france vs us", for example, you'll find they are comparable. A century ago and more, divorces were much harder to get in America, and probably elsewhere as well. You couldn't just say "we want a divorce". You had to show "cause", which led to bitterly contested trials. (That still happens sometimes.) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::However, since colonial times, divorce laws in British North America / The United States were much more rational than the horrible pre-1857 divorce system in England, and during parts of U.S. history, there has been a state with noticeably laxer divorce laws than most of the other states (Indiana during part of the 19th century, Nevada during much of the 20th century). ] (]) 19:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:This would be my assumption, a sarcastic allusion to the serial marriage practice found particularly among the rich and powerful. I doubt that Dworkin undertook a serious statistical examination comparing the US with other Western countries in the 1970s, or whenever she penned these words. (Rather unscholarly, neither Pinker nor others quoting these sentences provide a traceable bibliographic citation that allows me to date this passage.) &nbsp;--] 14:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, as P. G. Wodehouse wrote in ''Summer Moonshine'', "Like so many substantial citizens of America, he had married young and kept on marrying, springing from blonde to blonde like the chamois of the Alps leaping from crag to crag." ] (]) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*The original seems to be called "Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth", possibly first published in 1972 in '']''. Having skimmed the article, she never explains that aside remark - she actually talks mostly about socialist Czechoslovakia and the USSR in the rest of the piece. Some modern quotations of her adapt the quote to "lease it over the long-term (modern marriage/relationship) or own it outright (traditional marriage)" That said, 1972 was just after the first ] law was passed in the United States (in California), and looking at ], slightly before most European countries (which liberalized in the mid 70s. ] 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:: This is the full original quote:
::: ''In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and econom ics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has—sex. He can steal it (rape), persuade her to give it away (seduction), rent it (prostitution), lease it over the long term (marriage in the United States), or own it outright (marriage in most societies). A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.''
:: It is indeed from "Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth", first given as a speech to women at Harper & Row in 1976, and later published by Ms. in what Dworkin calls an "edited" version (her air quotes). The full original speech is published in ''Letters From a War Zone'' (1989). See . -- ] </sup></span>]] 22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Economics certainly figure into it, for example ugly rich guys getting pretty women. That's a universal truth. Did Dworkin ever elaborate on her perceived differences between American and other marriages? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes economics figures into everything and that's a truth, but what's supposedly this universal truth? How about a source? Where in pre-20th-century history was it not true that a rich and high status person, regardless of superficial appearance or indeed gender, could not exert comparable influence on any in the lower classes? In the 21st century so-called-middle-class of developed economies, are there numbers on those who would sell themselves into the described effective rape and slavery to marry those in the uppermost socioeconomic classes? These are all economic questions that are hardly universal, which is the point others are making of how this was an aside remark. ] (]) 05:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::A source for the obvious? What color is the sky in your world? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::: shows that the divorce rate in the USA was more than double that of any Western European nation throughout the late 20th century. ] (]) 11:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Even before that, the ease of divorce in some of those there United States was proverbial. "King's Moll Renoed in Wolsey's Home Town". ] (]) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's pretty much a modern expression of an old theory of Marx's. He was writing polemically at the time—hyperbolically, even, perhaps with an element of tongue-in-cheek for the worthy tailors—but the topic is similar:


] (]) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{blockquote|Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives{{nbsp}}... Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common.<ref>Marx, K., ''The Communist Manifesto'' (London, 1888; repr. 1985), p.101.</ref>}}


:It happens a fair amount in European history, but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It's generally a dynastic or patrilineal affiliation connected with the woman which is substituted, not the name of the woman herself. The descendents of Empress Matilda are known as Plantagenets after her husband's personal nickname. I'm not sure that the Habsburg-Lorraine subdivision is greatly different from the ] (always strictly patrilineal) being divided into the House of Artois, House of Bourbon, House of Anjou, etc. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Dworkin's was an updated working, in theme and language, but the hyperbole is akin. ]'']'' 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". ] (]) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The issue is not, however, the hyperbolic nature of Dworkin's passage, or the contrast between bourgeois and proletariat, but the alleged contrast between the US and "most societies", something Marx is mum about. &nbsp;--] 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::As a sidenote, the waters of this question are somewhat muddied by the fact that ] as we know them were not (even confining ourselves to Europe) always a thing; they arose at different times in different places and in different classes. Amongst the ruling classes, people were often 'surnamed' after their territorial possessions (which could have been acquired through marriage or other means) rather than their parental name(s). Also, in some individual family instances (in the UK, at any rate), a man was only allowed to inherit the property and/or title of/via a female heiress whom they married on the condition that they adopted her family name rather than her, his, so that the propertied/titled family name would be continued. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 13:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: <small> Freud had something to say about Marx's Mum. -- ] </sup></span>]] 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC) </small>
{{reftalk}}


:In the old style of dynastic reckoning, Elizabeth II would have been transitional from Saxe-Coburg to Glucksberg, and even under the current UK rules, descendants of Prince Philip (and only those descendants) who need surnames use ]. -- ] (]) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
= October 11 =


= December 25 =
== "The white one" ==


== Death Row commutations by Biden ==
Who is the white one in myth? In Egypt,: Krauss<ref name="l640">{{cite book |last=Steele |first=John M. |title=Under One Sky |last2=Imhausen |first2=Annette |date=2002 |publisher=Ugarit |isbn=3-934628-26-5 |publication-place=Münster |page=193}}</ref> says "For White One as a synonym for the eastern eye of Horus, cf the Hymns to the Diadem, above." Adolf Erman 1911 gives only for "der Weiße". Krauss didn't mention which of the 600-some pages. Any help? (And where does Hathi get off restricting downloads of materials marked public domain?)
] (]) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
<references /> ] (]) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
: See ]. ] (]) 05:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::I see it. Now what?
::] (]) 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe, depending on the context of the article you're working on, the next step is to reframe your question from {{Tqq|Who is the white one in myth?}} to {{xt|"What is the White One in ancient Egyptian tradition?"}}{{pb}}If that step is taken, then ] is your answer. If your context does not allow for that interpretation, perhaps more information would help people zero in on an aswer that meets your requirements. ] (]) 19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


Biden commuted nearly all of the Federal Death Row sentences a few days ago. Now, what’s the deal with the Military Death Row inmates? Are they considered "federal" and under the purview of Biden? Or, if not, what’s the distinction? Thanks. ] (]) 02:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:It being public domain means that if you get your hands on it, then you can freely redistribute it. It doesn't mean that anyone else is obliged to give it to you... ] (]) 14:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


: and the various tabs you can click from there include a lot of information. There hasn't been a military execution since 1961 and there are only four persons on the military death row at this point. The President does have the power to commute a death sentence issued under the ]. It is not clear why President Biden did not address those four cases when he commuted the sentences of most federal death row inmates a few days ago, although two of the four cases (see ) are linked to terrorism, so would likely not have been commuted anyway. ] (]) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== 0 with Roman numerals ==


== Coca Romano's portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania ==
In the ], the Fool has number 0 alongside the other trumps with Roman numerals. The existence of such a combination is not mentioned in ]. Are there other examples? When did this first occur, as far as we know? --] (]) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
<gallery mode=packed heights=300>
File:Sola Busca tarot card 00.jpg|0 – Mato
File:Sola Busca tarot card 01.jpg|I – Panfilio
File:Sola Busca tarot card 02.jpg|II – Postumio
File:Sola Busca tarot card 03.jpg|III – Lenpio
</gallery> ] (]) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply|KnightMove}} Also see ]. ]'']'' 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


I am trying to work out when Coca Romano's coronation portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania were actually completed and unveiled. This is with an eye to possibly uploading a photo of them to this wiki: they are certainly still in copyright in Romania (Romano lived until 1983), but probably not in the U.S. because of publication date.
:The ancient Romans didn't really have a concept of zero as a numerical digit in ordinary reckoning (though of course they had several words meaning "nothing"), and a zero numerical digit symbol would not have been needed or useful when writing positive numbers with Roman numerals. The closest they had to a positional notation system was sexagesimal (base-60) and was mainly used by astronomers. The sexagesimal system had a limited internal zero (used when flanked by other numbers on both sides, to indicate an empty place). ] (]) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


The coronation took place in 1922 at Alba Iulia. The portraits show Ferdinand and Marie in their full regalia that they wore at the coronation. They appear to have been based on photographs taken at the coronation, so they must have been completed after the event, not before.
:See ]. Arabic numerals including 0 were introduced to Western Europe early in the 13th century, so any time from then on an individual using Roman numerals (and they are of course still in active use today) might have found it convenient to combine 0 with them. Some may have known of classical Greek use of ] (ο) when working with Babylonian texts that had a 'placeholder' zero symbol, and Hipparchus, Ptolemy and other astronomers' use of the ] (see ]) (which the Romans failed to adopt into Roman numerals) around 150 CE (mentioned in the ] article): I can't reproduce it here, but it comprised a long 'overline' above a tiny circle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::By the magic of unicode: 𐆊, U+1018A GREEK ZERO SIGN. This is also at the top of the article ]. ]&nbsp;] 20:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::<small>Amusingly, that (like several other characters in the article) doesn't render on my PC: presumably I lack the font. No matter, because I don't myself need to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 04:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
::::It looks like this: ], a small circle with a long overbar. &nbsp;--] 09:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::<small>The first font I install on any new computer is ] for precisely this kind of purpose. ] (]) 19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
::Thank you for that information. Maybe someone knows a specific example of "any time from then on an individual using Roman numerals (and they are of course still in active use today) might have found it convenient to combine 0 with them".? --] (]) 16:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''may'' be that both (a) this late 15th century tarot is actually the first such example, and (b) you are the first person to have wondered about this point. I have not been able to find any work mentioning it; probably the expertise of a scholar specialising in Mediaeval MSS is needed.
:::For tangential interest, I have while searching encountered a 52-page work ''The Elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography'' by ], translated by David Heiman & Richard Kay, University of Kansas Libraries 1982 (googling the title gives access to downloadable pdfs). It ''doesn't'' address this particular question, but may be of interest nonetheless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::If a modern example is of use to you, not the earliest (it seems you asked for both?), see ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


A few pieces of information I have: there is no date on the canvasses. The pieces are in the collection of the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu (inventory numbers 2503 for the picture of Marie and 2504 for Ferdinand) , p. 36-37], and were on display this year at Art Safari in Bucharest, which is where I photographed them. If they were published (always a tricky concept for a painting, but I'm sure they were rapidly and widely reproduced) no later than 1928, or in a few days 1929, we can upload my photo in this wiki. - ] &#124; ] 04:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
= October 12 =
== Graham Greene and R. L. Stevenson as "cousins" ==
Our article on ] (citing a biography) says that his mother Marion Raymond Greene (1872-1959, the daughter of Carleton Greene and Jane Whytt Elizabeth Anne Wilson) was a cousin of ]. specifies they were first cousins. R.L.S.'s grandparents are well known: 1) ] (1750-1852) and his wife Jean Smith, 2) Rev. Lewis Balfour and his wife Henrietta Scott Smith. The names like Greene and Wilson are not listed among R.L.S.'s ancestors, as well as the Scottish names like Stevenson and Balfour are absent among Marion Raymond's ancestors. Could anyone clarify this mystery? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:The ] says "Greene, (Henry) Graham (1904–1991), author, was born on 2 October 1904 at St John's, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, the fourth of six children of Charles Henry Greene (1865–1942), teacher, and his wife and cousin, Marion Raymond (1872–1959), eldest daughter of the Revd Carleton Greene, whose wife, Jane Wilson, was a first cousin of Robert Louis Stevenson." - so Graham Greene's '''grand-mother''' was a first cousin of RLS. ] (]) 23:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


(I've uploaded the image to Flickr, if anyone wants a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54225746973/). - ] &#124; ] 05:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
= October 13 =

Latest revision as of 14:45, 25 December 2024

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:

December 11

Shopping carts

Where were the first shopping carts introduced?

Both articles agree it was in 1937 in Oklaholma. I believe that Humpty Dumpty is more likely, but some high quality sources would be useful. TSventon (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be a matter of some dispute, but Guide to the Telescoping Shopping Cart Collection, 1946-1983, 2000 by the Smithsonian Institution has the complex details of the dispute between Sylvan Goldman and Orla Watson. No mention of Piggly Wiggly, but our article on Watson notes that in 1946, he donated the first models of his cart to 10 grocery stores in Kansas City.
The Illustrated History of American Military Commissaries (p. 205) has both Watson and Goldman introducing their carts in 1947 (this may refer to carts that telescope into each other for storage, a feature apparently lacking in Goldman's first model).
Scalable Innovation: A Guide for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and IP Professionals says that Goldman's first cart was introduced to Humpty Dumty in 1937.
Make of that what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. I remember that the power lift arrangement mentioned in the Smithsonian's link was still an object of analysis for would-be inventors in the mid-sixties, and possibly later, even though the soon to be ubiquituous checkout counter conveyor belt was very much ready making it unnecessary. Couldn't help curiously but think about those when learning about Bredt's rule at school later, see my user page, but it's true "Bredt" sounded rather like "Bread" in my imagination. --Askedonty (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
On Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing shopping carts referenced in Portland, Oregon in 1935 or earlier, and occasionally illustrated, at a store called the Public Market; and as far as the term itself is concerned, it goes back to at least the 1850s. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
But perhaps referring to a cart brought by the shopper to carry goods home with, rather than one provided by the storekeeper for use in-store? Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alansplodge, Askedonty, and Baseball Bugs: thank you for your help, it seems that the Harvard Business Review is mistaken and the Piggly Wiggly chain did not introduce the first shopping baskets, which answers my question. The shopping cart article references a paper by Catherine Grandclément, which shows that several companies were selling early shopping carts in 1937, so crediting Sylvan Goldman alone is not the whole story. TSventon (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII

At 53:20 in Dunkirk (1958 film), British soldiers talk about 'flowers on the way into Belgium, raspberries on the way out', and specifically reference lilacs. I imagine this was very clear to 1958 audiences, but what is the significance of lilacs? Is it/was it a symbol of Belgium? Valereee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just that the BEF entered Belgium in the Spring, which is lilac time. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
There are contemporary reports of the streets being strewn with lilac blossom. See here "Today the troops crossed the frontier along roads strewn with flowers. Belgian girls, wildly enthusiastic, plucked lilac from the wayside and scattered it along the road to be torn and twisted by the mighty wheels of the mechanised forces." DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah! That would explain it, thanks! Valereee (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

December 12

The USA adding a new state

If my understanding is correct, the following numbers are valid at present: (a) number of Senators = 100; (b) number of Representatives = 435; (c) number of electors in the Electoral College = 538. If the USA were to add a new state, what would happen to these numbers? Thank you. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The number of senators would increase by 2, and the number of representatives would probably increase by at least 1. ←Baseball Bugs carrots09:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thus, to answer the final question, the minimum number of Electors would be 3… more if the new state has more Representatives (based on population). Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
In the short term, there would be extra people in congress. The 86th United States Congress had 437 representatives, because Alaska and Hawaii were granted one upon entry regardless of the apportionment rules. Things were smoothed down to 435 at the next census, two congresses later. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me re-phrase my question. (a) The number of Senators is always 2 per State, correct? (b) The number of Representatives is what? Is it "capped" at 435 ... or does it increase a little bit? (c) The number of Electors (per State) is simply a function of "a" + "b" (per State), correct? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is indeed capped at 435, though Golbez brings up a point I hadn't taken into account -- apparently it can go up temporarily when states are added, until the next reapportionment. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that (b) would probably depend on whether the hypothetical new state was made up of territory previously part of one or more existing states, or territory not previously part of any existing state. And I suspect that the eventual result would not depend on any pre-calculable formula, but on cut-throat horsetrading between the two main parties and other interested bodies. {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Nope, it's capped at 435. See Reapportionment Act of 1929. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The Constitution has a much higher cap, currently around eleven thousand. —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, one other refinement. The formula you've given for number of electors is correct, for states. But it leaves out the District of Columbia, which gets as many electors as it would get if it were a state, but never less more than those apportioned to the smallest state. In practice that means DC gets three electors. That's why the total is 538 instead of 535. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Oops; I remembered the bit about the smallest state wrong. It's actually never more than the smallest state. Doesn't matter in practice; still works out to 3 electors for the foreseeable future, either way, because DC would get 3 electors if it were a state, and the least populous state gets 3. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

December 13

economics: coffee prices question

in news report "On Tuesday, the price for Arabica beans, which account for most global production, topped $3.44 a pound (0.45kg), having jumped more than 80% this year. " how do they measure it? some other report mention it is a commodity price set for trading like gold silver etc. what is the original data source for this report? i checked a few other news stories and did not find any clarification about this point, they just know something that i don't. thank you in advance for your help. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Gryllida, they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the List of traded commodities. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later
thanks. i see the chart which you cannot link here. why did it peak and then drop shortly after? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Financial markets tend to have periods of increase followed by periods of decrease (bull and bear markets), see market trend for background. TSventon (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

source for an order of precedence for abbotts

Hi friends. The article for Ramsey Abbey in the UK refers to an "order of precedence for abbots in Parliament". (Sourced to an encyclopedia, which uses the wording "The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's"). Did a ranking/order of precedence exist and if yes where can it be found? Presumably this would predate the dissolution of monasteries in england. Thanks.70.67.193.176 (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The abbots called to parliament were called "Mitred Abbots" although not all were entitled to wear a mitre. Our Mitre article has much the same information as you quote, and I suspect the same citations. The only other reference I could find, also from an encyclopedia;
Of the abbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence till A.D. 1154, when Pope Adrian IV, an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St. Alban's. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading had the third place.
A Church Dictionary: A Practical Manual of Reference for Clergymen and Students (p. 2)
Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Sources differ on the order. There is a list published in 1842 of 26 abbots as "generally ... reckoned" in order here
The Church History of Britain Volume 2 (p.182) TSventon (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be Mesne lords. 194.73.48.66 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
"Mean lords" looks like an alternative spelling that was used in the 19th century, so it was probably a correct spelling in 1842. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you everyone very much for your time and research, truly appreciated. all the best,70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Are the proposed Trump tariffs a regressive tax in disguise?

I'm wondering if there has been analysis of this. The US government gets the tariff money(?) and biggest chunk will be on manufactured goods from China. Those in turn are primarily consumer goods, which means that the tariff is something like a sales tax, a type of tax well known to be regressive. Obviously there are leaks in the description above, so one would have to crunch a bunch of numbers to find out for sure. But that's what economists do, right? Has anyone weighed in on this issue? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:327E (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There have been many public comments about how this is a tax on American consumers. It's only "in disguise" to those who don't understand how tariffs work. ←Baseball Bugs carrots11:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can find. Do you remember if the revenue collected is supposed to be enough for the government to care about? I.e. enough to supposedly offset the inevitable tax cuts for people like Elon Musk? 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:327E (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Import duties are extremely recessive in that (a) they are charged at the same rate for any given level of income; and (b) those with less income tend to purchase far more imported goods than those with more income (define “more” and “less” any way you wish). Fiscally, they border on insignificant, running an average of 1.4% of federal revenue since 1962 (or, 0.2% of GDP), compared to 47.1% (8.0%) for individual income tax and 9.9% (1.7%) for corporate tax receipts.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Curious about your point (b); why would this be? It seems to me that as my income has risen I have probably bought more stuff from abroad, at least directly. It could well be that I've bought less indirectly, but I'm not sure why that would be. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
More like, those with less income spend a larger fraction of their income on imported goods, instead of services. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Trovatore, most daily use items are imported: toothbrushes, combs, kitchenware, shopping bags. Most durable goods are imported: phones, TVs, cars, furniture, sporting goods, clothes. These items are more likely to be imported because it is MUCH cheaper / more profitable to make them abroad. Wander through Target, Sam's Club, or Wal-Mart and you'll be hard pressed to find "Made in America" goods. But, in a hand-crafted shop, where prices have to reflect the cost of living HERE, rather than in Bangladesh, prices soar. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Um, sure, but surely it's a fairly rare person of any income level who spends a significant portion of his/her income on artisanal goods. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
PiusImpavidus, Every income strata (in America) spends far more on services than on goods. Services tend to be more of a repeated purchase: laundry (vs. washing machine), Uber (vs. car), rent (vs. purchase), internet (vs. books), etc. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ron A. Dunn: Australian arachnologist

For Ronald Albert Dunn (Q109827858) I have given names of "Ron. A.", an address in 1958 of 60 Mimosa Road, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia S.E. 9 (he was also in Carnegie in 1948) and an uncited death date of 25 June 1972.

He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS.

Can anyone find the full given names, and a source or the death date, please? What did the honorifics stand for? Do we know how he earned his living? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start
A scan of the 1954 Carnegie electoral roll has
  • Dunn, Ronald Albert, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, accountant
  • Dunn, Gladys Harriet I, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, home duties
I can't check newspapers.com, but The Age apparently had a report about Ronald Albert Dunn on 27 Jun 1972 TSventon (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I accessed Ancestry.com via the Misplaced Pages Library, so you should have access. Newspapers.com is also available via the library if you register, which I haven't. An editor with a Newspapers.com account would be able to make a clipping which anyone could access online.
I agree AAA is probably the Australian Society of Accountants, a predecessor of CPA Australia. They merged in 1953 (source) so the information would have been outdated in 1958. AAIS could be Associate Amalgamated Institute of Secretaries (source Who's Who in Australia, Volume 16, 1959 Abbreviations page 9). TSventon (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. TSventon (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Or perhaps someone at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request could help? Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
They already have at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#The Age (Melbourne) 27 June 1972. TSventon (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Given his specialty, I suggest the honorific stands for "Aaaaaaaaagh It's (a) Spider!" Chuntuk (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

December 15

Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception

Did the three schisms between Rome and Constantinople tarnish Rome's reputation to the degree that it affected the Byzantine self-perception as the "Roman Empire" and as "Romans"? Including Constantinople's vision of succession to the Roman Empire and its notion of Second Rome. Brandmeister 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Various maneuverings in the middle ages (including the infamous Fourth Crusade) certainly gave many Byzantines a negative view of western Catholics, so that toward the end some frankly preferred conquest by Muslims to a Christian alliance which would involve Byzantine religious and political subordination to the European West (see discussion at Loukas Notaras). But the Byzantines generally considered themselves to be the real Romans, and called themselves "Romaioi" much more often than they called themselves Greek (of course, "Byzantine" is a later retroactive term). AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I think these religious schisms had nothing to do with the secular political situation. In 330, before Christianity became an established religion that could experience schisms, Constantine the Great moved the capital of the unitary Roman Empire from Rome to the city of Byzantium and dubbed it the New Rome – later renamed to Constantinople. During the later periods in which the Western and Eastern Roman Empire were administered separately, this was not considered a political split but an expedient way of administering a large polity, of which Constantinople remained the capital. So when the Western wing of the Roman Empire fell to the Ostrogoths and even the later Exarchate of Ravenna disappeared, the Roman Empire, now only administered by the Constantinopolitan court, continued in an unbroken succession from the Roman Kingdom and subsequent Republic.  --Lambiam 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
In Ottoman Turkish, the term روم (Rum), ultimately derived from Latin Roma, was used to designate the Byzantine Empire, or, as a geographic term, its former lands. Fun fact: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmet the Conqueror and his successors claimed the title of Caesar of Rome, with the Ottoman Empire being the successor of the Byzantine Empire. IMO this claim has merit; Mehmet II was the first ruler of yet another dynasty, but rather than replacing the existing Byzantine administrative apparatus, he simply continued its use for the empire he had become the ruler of. If you recognize the claim, the Republic of Turkey is today's successor of the Roman Kingdom.  --Lambiam 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The Ottomans basically continued the Byzantine tax-collection system, for a while. AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Presidents/Heads of State CURRENTLY Buried in the USA

How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) For example, In Woodlawn Cemetery in Miami, FL, there are two Cuban presidents and a Nicaraguan president.

Are there any other foreign presidents, heads of state, that are buried in the USA? Exeter6 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, all 4 of the presidents of the Republic of Texas are buried in Texas, which is currently in the US. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Andrés Domingo y Morales del Castillo was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though.
Also Anselmo Alliegro y Milá (President of Cuba for a few hours on January 1, 1959) similarly went to Florida and died there.
And Arnulfo Arias, ousted as President of Panama in the 1968 Panamanian coup d'état, died in Florida (a pattern emerging here...)
Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
For ease of reference, the Woodlawn Cemetery in question is Caballero Rivero Woodlawn Park North Cemetery and Mausoleum, housing:
  1. Gerardo Machado, president of Cuba from 1925 to 1933
  2. Carlos Prío Socarrás, president of Cuba from 1948 to 1952
  3. Anastasio Somoza Debayle, president of Nicaragua from 1967 to 1972, and from 1974 to 1979 (not to be confused with his father Anastasio Somoza García and brother Luis Somoza Debayle, both former presidents of Nicaragua, buried together in Nicaragua)
GalacticShoe (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Searching Findagrave could be fruitful. Machado's entry:Baseball Bugs carrots21:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Polish prime minister and famous musician Ignacy Paderewski had his grave in the United States until 1992. AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I guess not current, though... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
You can find some with the following Wikidata query: . Some notable examples are Liliʻuokalani, Pierre Nord Alexis, Dương Văn Minh, Lon Nol, Bruno Carranza, Victoriano Huerta, and Mykola Livytskyi. Note that Alexander Kerensky died in the US but was buried in the UK. Unfortunately, the query also returns others who were presidents, governors, etc. of other than sovereign states. --Amble (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose we should also consider Jefferson Davis as a debatable case. And Peter II of Yugoslavia was initially buried in the USA but later reburied in Serbia. He seems to have been the only European monarch who was at one point buried in the USA. --Amble (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Manuel Quezon was initially buried at Arlington. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
And of course I should rather think that most monarchs of Hawaii are buried in the USA. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --142.112.149.206 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Royal Mausoleum (Mauna ʻAla) answers that question with a definitive "yes, it was". Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Antanas Smetona was initially buried in Cleveland, but then reburied elsewhere in Ohio. --Amble (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
To be specific, All Souls Cemetery in Chardon according to Smetona's article. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
There are a number of Egyptian mummies in US museums (List of museums with Egyptian mummies in their collections), but I can't find any that are currently known to be the mummy of a pharaoh. The mummy of Ramesses I was formerly in the US, but was returned to Egypt in 2003. --Amble (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 17

Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800

What would have been the typical extent (in square miles or square kilometers) of an English parish, circa 1800 or so? Let's say the median rather than the mean. With more interest in rural than urban parishes. -- Avocado (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There were tensions involved in a unit based on the placement of churches being tasked to administer the poor law; that was why "civil parishes" were split off a little bit later... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Avocado As a start the mean area of a parish in England and Wales in around 1832 seems to have been around 5.6 square miles.
Source The Edinburgh Encyclopædia Volume 8. It also has figures by county if you are interested.
Thank you -- that's a starting point, at least! -- Avocado (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
But regionally variable:
By the early nineteenth century the north-west of England, including the expanding cities of Manchester and Liverpool, had just over 150 parishes, each of them covering an average of almost 12,000 acres, whereas the more rural east of the country had more than 1,600 parishes, each with an average size of approximately 2,000 acres.
OCR A Level History: Britain 1603-1760
Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary , in England , which contains 38,500,000 statute acres, the parishes or livings comprehend about 3,850 acres the average; and if similar allowance be made for those livings in cities and towns , perhaps about 4,000.
An Essay on the Revenues of the Church of England (1816) p. 165
The point about urban parishes distorting the overall average is supported by St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate for instance, that had a parish of only 3 acres (or two football pitches of 110 yards by 70 yards placed side by side). Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that's great info -- ty! I can't seem to get a look at the content of the book. Does it say anything else about other regions? -- Avocado (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The OCR book doesn't mention other regions. I have found where the figure of 10,674 came from: page 112 of the 1816 essay has a note that Preliminary Observations ( p . 13. and 15. ) to the Popu-lation Returns in 1811 ; where the Parishes and Parochial Chapelries are stated at 10,674 . The text of page 112 says that churches are contained in be-tween 10 , and 11,000 parishes † ; and probably after a due allowance for consolidations , & c . they constitute the Churches of about 10,000 Parochial Benefices, so the calculation on p.165 of the 1816 essay is based on around 10,000 parishes in England (and Wales) in 1800 (38,500,000 divided by 3,850). TSventon (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The primary source is Abstract of the Answers and Returns Made Pursuant to an Act Passed in the Fifty-first Year of His Majesty King George III, Intituled, "An Act for Taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and of the Increase Or Diminution Thereof" : Preliminary Observations, Enumeration Abstract, Parish Register Abstract, 1811 and the table of parishes by county is on page xxix. TSventon (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Avocado (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Parishes, like political constituencies etc, were in theory decided by the number of inhabitants, not the area covered. What the average was at particular points, I don't know. No doubt it rose over recent centuries as the population expanded, but rural parishes generally did not. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
But whatever the population changes, the parish boundaries in England (whether urban or rural) remained largely fixed between the 12th and mid-19th centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Right, I'm not asking because I thought parish boundaries had been drawn to equalize the geographic area covered or I wanted to know how those boundaries came about. I'm asking because I'm curious what would have been typical in terms of geographic area in order to better understand certain aspects of the society of the time.
For instance, how far (and thus how long) would people have to travel to get to their church? How far might they live from other people who attended the same church? How far would the rector/vicar/curate have to range to attend to his parishioners in their homes?
Questions like that. Does that make the reason for this particular inquiry make more sense? -- Avocado (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Someone on Reddit had a similar question and the answer there suggested C. N. L. Brooke’s Churches and Churchmen in Medieval Europe (1999) on Google books. You may find the first chapter, Rural Ecclesiastical Institutions in England : The Search for their Origins interesting. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the link!
Fwiw, I'm not really seeing any answers to questions of actual geographic extent in that first chapter, mostly info on the "how they came to be" that, again, isn't really the focus of the question. Or maybe the info I'm looking for is in the pages that are omitted from the preview?
The rest of the book is clearly focused on a much earlier period than I'm interested in (granted, parish boundaries may not have changed much between the start of the Reformation and the Georgian era, but culture, practices, and the relationship of most people to their church and parish certainly would have!) -- Avocado (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The chapter is relevant to how far people had to travel in the middle ages, which I can see is not the period you are interested in. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks to me as if the pages I need are probably among the unavailable ones, then. Oh well. Thank you for the suggestion regardless! -- Avocado (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
One last link, the introduction of which might be helpful, describing attempts to create new parishes for the growing population in the early 19th century (particularly pp. 19-20):
The New parishes acts, 1843,1844, & 1856. With notes and observations &c
Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When was the first bat mitzvah?

Bar and bat mitzvah has a short history section, all of which is about bar mitzvah. When was the first bat mitzvah? What is its history? ꧁Zanahary01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am more asking when the bat mitzvah ritual became part of common Jewish practice. ꧁Zanahary01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Parts from Google's translation of he:בת מצווה:
As early as the early 19th century, in the early days of Reform Judaism, confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls began to be held in which their knowledge of the religion was tested, similar to that practiced among Christians. It spread to the more liberal circles of German Jewry, and by the middle of the century had also begun to be widespread among the Orthodox bourgeoisie. Rabbi Jacob Etlinger of Altona was forced by the community's regulations to participate in such an event in 1867, and published the sermon he had prepared for the purpose later. He emphasized that he was obligated to do so by law, and that Judaism did not recognize that the principles of the religion should be adopted in such a public declaration, since it is binding from birth. However, as part of his attempt to stop the Reform, he supported a kind of parallel procedure that was intended to take place exclusively outside the synagogue.
The idea of confirmation was not always met with resistance, especially with regard to girls: the chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of French Jews, Shlomo Zalman Ullmann, permitted it for both sexes in 1843. In 1844, confirmation for young Jews was held for the first time in Verona, Italy. In the 1880s, Rabbi Zvi Hermann Adler agreed to the widespread introduction of the ceremony, after it had become increasingly common in synagogues, but refused to call it 'confirmation'. In 1901, Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor, cantor in Alexandria, permitted it for both boys and girls, inspired by what was happening in Italy. Other rabbis initially ordered a more conservative event.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude towards the bat mitzvah party was reserved, because it was sometimes an attempt to imitate symbols drawn from the confirmation ceremony, and indeed there were rabbis, such as Rabbi Aharon Volkin, who forbade the custom on the grounds of gentile laws, or who treated it with suspicion, such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who in a 1950s recantation forbade holding an event in the synagogue because it was "a matter of authority and a mere vanity...there is no point and no basis for considering it a matter of a mitzvah and a mitzvah meal". The Haredi community also expressed strong opposition to the celebration of the bat mitzvah due to its origins in Reform circles. In 1977, Rabbi Yehuda David Bleich referred to it as one of the "current problems in halakhah", noting that only a minority among the Orthodox celebrate it and that it had spread to them from among the Conservatives.
On the other hand, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, rabbis began to encourage holding a Bat Mitzvah party for a daughter, similar to a party that is customary for a son, with the aim of strengthening observance of the mitzvot among Jewish women.
 --Lambiam 11:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Surprising how recent it is. ꧁Zanahary21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 18

Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century

What would be the most important feminist victories prior to the 18th and 19th centuries? I'm looking for specific laws or major changes (anywhere in the world), not just minor improvements in women's pursuit of equality. Something on the same scale and importantance as the women's suffrage. DuxCoverture (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any occuring without being foreseable a set of conditions such as the perspective of a minimal equal representation both in the judiciary and law enforcement. Those seem to be dependent on technological progress, maybe particularly law enforcement although the judiciary sometimes heavily relies on recording capabilities. Unfortunately Ancient Egypt is not very explicitly illustrating the genesis of its sociological dynamics. --Askedonty (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Before universal male suffrage became the norm in the 19th century, also male commoners did not pull significant political weight, at least in Western society, so any feminist "victories" before then can only have been minor improvements in women's rights in general.  --Lambiam 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Changes regarding divorce, property rights of women, protections against sexual assault or men's mistreatment of women could have have been significant, right? (Though I don't know what those changes were) 2601:644:907E:A70:9072:5C74:BC02:CB02 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think many of those were widely, significantly changed prior to the 18th century, though the World is large and diverse, and history is long, so it's difficult to generalise. See Women's rights. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
In the English monarchy, when King Henry I died in 1135 with no living male legitimate child, a civil war followed over whether his daughter or his nephew should inherit the throne. (It was settled by a compromise.) But in 1553 when King Edward VI died, Queen Mary I inherited the throne and those who objected did it on religious grounds and not because she was a woman: in fact there was an attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne instead. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Although Mary's detractors believed that her Catholic zeal was a result of her gender; a point made by the Calvinist reformer John Knox, who published a polemic entitled The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. When the Protestant Elizabeth I inherited the throne, there was a quick about face; Elizabeth was compared to the Biblical Deborah, who had freed the Israelites from the Canaanites and led them to an era of peace and prosperity, and was obviously a divine exception to the principle that females were unfit to rule. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
A possibly fictional account in the film Agora has the proto-feminist Hypatia anticipating Kepler's orbits about two millenia before that gentleman, surely a significant feminine achievement. Philvoids (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
"The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies: It inflates Hypatia's achievements and incorrectly portrays her as finding a proof of Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever studied." (from our Hypatia article linked above). Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if true (we have no proof she did not embrace the heliocentric model while developing the theory of gravitation to boot), it did not result in a major change in the position of women.  --Lambiam 03:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
To some extent it is going to depend on what is considered a "feminist victory".
There has steadily been more evidence of numerous female Viking warriors, and similarly the Onna-musha in Japan.
Many Native American tribal cultures had strong roles for women. Iroquois women, for example, played the major role in appointing and removing chiefs (though the chiefs were all male, as far as we know).
And, of course, a certain number of women have, one way or another, achieved a great deal in a society that normally had little place for female achievement, though typically they eventually were brought down one way or another. Besides queens regnant and a number of female regents (including in the Roman Empire), two examples that leap to mind are Joan of Arc and Sor Juana de la Cruz. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Intolerance by D. W. Griffith

Why did D. W. Griffith make the film Intolerance after making the very popular and racist film The Birth of a Nation? What did he want to convey? 174.160.82.127 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The lead of our article states that, in numerous interviews, Griffith made clear that the film was a rebuttal to his critics and he felt that they were, in fact, the intolerant ones.  --Lambiam 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
For not tolerating his racism? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Precisely. Griffith thought he was presenting the truth, however unpopular, and that the criticism was meant to stifle his voice, not because the opinions he expressed were wrong but because they were unwelcome.  --Lambiam 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Term for awkward near-similarity

Is there a term for the feeling produced when two things are nearly but not quite identical, and you wish they were either fully identical or clearly distinct? I think this would be reminiscent of the narcissism of small differences, but applied to things like design or aesthetics – or like a broader application of the uncanny valley (which is specific to imitation of humans). --71.126.56.235 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The uncanniness of the uncanny valley would be a specific subclass of this.  --Lambiam 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yearbooks

Why yearbooks are often named after years that they concern? For example, a yearbook that concerns year 2024 and tells statistics about that year might be named 2025 Yearbook, with 2024 Yearbook instead concerning 2023? Which is the reason for that? --40bus (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. TSventon (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever.  --Lambiam 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
In the example of a high school yearbook, 2025 would be the year in which the 2024-2025 school year ended and the students graduated. Hence, "the Class of 2025" though the senior year started in 2024. ←Baseball Bugs carrots23:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of a yearbook is to highlight the past year activities, for example a 2025 yearbook is to highlight the activities of 2024. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Are there any yearbooks that are named after the same years that they concern, e.g. 2024 yearbook concerning 2024, 2023 yearbook concerning 2023 etc. --40bus (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
A professional baseball team will typically have a "2024 Yearbook" for the current season, since the entire season occurred in 2024. Though keep in mind that the 2024 yearbook would have come out at the start of the season, hence it actually covers stats from 2023 as well as rosters and schedules for 2024. ←Baseball Bugs carrots14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
In the UK, the magazine Private Eye releases an annual at the end of every year which is named in this way. It stands out from all the other comic/magazine annuals on the rack which are named after the following year. I worked in bookselling for years and always found this interesting. Turner Street (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Distinguish between Almanac (for predictions) and Yearbook (for recollections). ¨Philvoids (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

December 21

Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source?

I once read in a George Will article (or it might have been in one of his short columns) that the University of Chicago or one of its departments used "Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta" as a motto, but it turned out this was completely (if unintentionally, at least on Will's part) made up. Does anyone else remember George Will making that claim? Regardless, has anyone any idea how George Will may have mis-heard or mis-remembered it? (I could never believe that he intentionally made it up.) Anyway, does anyone know the source of the phrase, or at least an earliest source. (Obviously it may have occurred to several people independently.) The earliest I've found on Google is a 2007 article in the MIT Technology Review. Anything earlier? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

describes it as "John Bell’s motto" and uses the reference J. Bell, ‘Legal Theory in Legal Education – “Everything you can do, I can do meta…”’, in: S. Eng (red.), Proceedings of the 21st IVR World Congress: Lund (Sweden), 12-17 August 2003, Wiesbaden: Frans Steiner Verlag, p. 61.. Polygnotus (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
In his book I've Been Thinking, Daniel C. Dennett writes: 'Doug Hofstadter and I once had a running disagreement about who first came up with the quip “Anything you can do I can do meta”; I credited him and he credited me.' Dennett credited Hofstadter (writing meta- with a hyphen) in Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds (1998). Hofstadter disavowed this claim in I am a Strange Loop, suggesting that the quip was Dennett's brainchild, writing, 'To my surprise, though, this “motto” started making the rounds and people quoted it back to me as if I had really thought it up and really believed it.'
It is, of course, quite possible that this witty variation on Irving Berlin's "Anything You Can Do (I Can Do Better)" was invented independently again and again. In 1979, Arthur Allen Leff wrote, in an article in Duke Law Journal: 'My colleague, Leon Lipson, once described a certain species of legal writing as, “Anything you can do, I can do meta.”' (Quite likely, John Bell (mis)quoted Lipson.) For other, likely independent examples, in 1986, it is used as the title of a technical report stressing the importance of metareasoning in the domain of machine learming (Morik, Katharina. Anything you can do I can do meta. Inst. für Angewandte Informatik, Projektgruppe KIT, 1986), and in 1995 we find this ascribed to cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder.  --Lambiam 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
(ec) He may have been mixing this up with "That's all well and good and practice, but how does it work in theory?" which is associated with the University of Chicago and attributed to Shmuel Weinberger, who is a professor there. Dekimasuよ! 14:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Did Sir John Hume get entrapped in his own plot (historically)?

In Shakespeare's "First Part of the Contention..." (First Folio: "Henry VI Part 2") there's a character, Sir John Hume, a priest, who manages to entrap the Duchess of Gloucester in the conjuring of a demon, but then gets caught in the plot and is sentenced to be "strangled on the gallows".

My question: Was Sir John Hume, the priest, a historical character? If he was, did he really get caught in the plot he laid for the Duchess, and end up being executed?

Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play:

In Act 1, Scene 2 Sir John Hume and the Duchess of Gloucester are talking about using Margery Jordan "the cunning witch of Eye" and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, to raise a spirit that will answer the Duchess's questions. It is clear Hume is being paid by the Duke of Suffolk to entrap the Duchess. His own motivation is not political but simple lucre.

In Act 1, Scene 4 the witch Margery Jordan, John Southwell and Sir John Hume, the two priests, and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, conjure a demon (Asnath) in front of the Duchess of Gloucester in order that she may ask him questions about the fate of various people, and they all get caught and arrested by the Duke of York and his men. (Hume works for Suffolk and Cardinal Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, not for York, so it is not through Hume that York knows of these goings on, but York on his part was keeping a watch on the Duchess)

Act 2, Scene 3 King Henry: (to Margery Jordan, John Southwell, Sir John Hume, and Roger Bolingbroke) "You four, from hence to prison back again; / From thence, unto the place of execution. / The witch in Smithfield shall be burned to ashes, / And you three shall be strangled on the gallows."

178.51.16.158 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

John Home or Hume (Home and Hume are pronounced identically) was Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester's confessor. According to this and this "Home, who had been indicted only for having knowledge of the activities of the others, was pardoned and continued in his position as canon of Hereford. He died in 1473." He does not seem to have been Sir John. I'm sure someone who knows more than me will be along soon. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
At this period "Sir" (and "Lady") could still be used as a vague title for people of some status, without really implying they had a knighthood. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Identically /hjuːm/ (HYOOM), to be clear.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and the First Part of the Contention is Henry Sixt Part II, not Part I! We also have articles about Roger Bolingbroke and Margery Jourdemayne, the Witch of Eye. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I corrected it now. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
There's also an article for a Thomas Southwell (priest). In Shakespeare he is "John Southwell". The name "John Southwell" does appear in the text of the play itself (it is mentioned by Bolingbroke). I haven't checked if the quarto and the folio differ on the name. His dates seem to be consistent with this episode and Roger Bolingbroke does refer to the other priest as "Thomas Southwell". But nothing is mentioned in the article Thomas Southwell (priest) itself, so that article may be about some other priest named Thomas Southwell. In any case Roger Bolingbroke points out that only Roger Bolingbroke and Margery Jourdemayne were executed in connection with this affair. Shakespeare has them all executed. He must have been in a bad mood when he wrote that passage. Either that, or he just wanted to keep things simple. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that may well be our Southwell, according to "Chronicle of Gregory 1441. 27 Oct 1441. And on Syn Symon and Jude is eve was the wycche (age 26) be syde Westemyster brent in Smethefylde, and on the day of Symon and Jude the person of Syn Stevynnys in Walbroke, whyche that was one of the same fore said traytours , deyde in the Toure for sorowe." The Chronicle of Gregory, written by William Gregory is published by the Camden Society DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Some experienced editor may then want to add these facts to his article, possibly using the Chronicle of Gregory as a source. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 22

Mike Johnson

I saw Mike Johnson on TV a day or two ago. (He was speaking from some official podium ... I believe about the recent government shutdown possibility, the Continuing Resolution, etc.) I was surprised to see that he was wearing a yarmulke. The color of the yarmulke was a close match to the color of Johnson's hair, so I had to look closely and I had to look twice. I said to myself "I never knew that he was Jewish". It bothered me, so I looked him up and -- as expected -- he is not Jewish. Why would he be wearing a yarmulke? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Presumably to show his support for Israel and anti-semitism (and make inroads into the traditional Jewish-American support for the Democratic Party). Trump wore one too. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I did not know that was a "thing". To wear one to show support. First I ever heard of that or seen that. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
He may also have just come from, or be shortly going to, some (not necessarily religious) event held in a synagogue, where he would wear it for courtesy. I would do the same, and have my (non-Jewish) grandfather's kippah, which he wore for this purpose not infrequently, having many Jewish friends. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I assume you mis-spoke: to show his support for ... anti-semitism. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It is somewhat customary, also for male goyim, to don a yarmulke when visiting a synagogue or attending a Jewish celebration or other ceremony, like Biden here while lecturing at a synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia (and under him Trump while groping the Western Wall). Was Johnson speaking at a synagogue?  --Lambiam 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It may have been a Hanukkah reception.  --Lambiam 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Precisely, Lambian. Here is Johnson's official statement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This year Hanukkah begins unusually late in the Gregorian calendar, starting at sundown on December 25, when Congress will not be in session. This coincidence can be described by the portmanteau Chrismukkah. So, the Congressional observance of Hanukkah was ahead of schedule this year. Back in 2013, Hanukkah arrived unusually early, during the US holiday of Thanksgiving, resulting in the portmanteau of Thanksgivukkah. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
When you want to check the correlation between Jewish and Christian holidays, you can use the fact that Orthodox Christian months almost always correspond to Jewish months. For Chanucah, the relevant correlation is Emma/Kislev. From the table Special:Permalink/1188536894#The Reichenau Primer (opposite Pangur Bán), in 2024 (with Golden Number 11) Emma began on 3 December, so 24 Emma is 26 December. 92.12.75.131 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Much appreciated! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol

Who was Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol? There is only one reference online ("Letter from Joseph Mary Thouveau. Bishop of Sebastopol, to Philip Lutley Sclater regarding Lady Amherst's Pheasant", 1869), and that has no further details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

After that search engine I used insisted I was looking for a Chauveau I finally located this Joseph Marie Chauveau - So the J M Thouveau item from maxarchiveservices uk must be one of the eccentricities produced by that old fashioned hand-written communication they had in the past. --Askedonty (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Of interest that other notice Joseph, Marie, Pierre. The hand-written text scribbled on the portrait stands as 'Eveque de Sebastopolis'. Pierre-Joseph Chauveau probably, now is also mentioned as Pierre-Joseph in Voyages ..even though, Lady Amherst's Pheasant is referred, in the same, through an other missionary intermediary: similar. --Askedonty (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Also in Contribution des missionnaires français au progrès des sciences naturelles au XIX et XX. (1932). Full texts are not accessible though it seems there is three times the same content in three different but more or less simultaneously published editions. Askedonty (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a stub at fr:Joseph-Marie Chauveau (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at fr:Évêché titulaire de Sébastopolis-en-Arménie. TSventon (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Askedonty: Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error.
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Those results were in fact detailed enough that we may even document the circumstances associated with Mgr. Chauveau writing the original letter to the Society. Louis Pierre Carreau recounts his buying of specimens in the country, then his learning about the interest for the species in British diplomatic circles about. The French text is available, with the Gallica servers not under excessive stress, in Bulletin de la Société zoologique d'acclimatation 2°sér t. VII aka "1870" p.502 at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb345084433/date; an other account mentioning the specific species is to be found p.194 . --Askedonty (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 23

London Milkman photo

I am writing a rough draft of Delivery After Raid, also known as The London Milkman in my sandbox. I’m still trying to verify basic information, such as the original publication of the photo. It was allegedly first published on October 10, 1940, in Daily Mirror, but it’s behind a paywall in British Newspaper Archive, but from the previews I can see, I don’t know think the photo is there. Does anyone know who originally published it or publicized it, or which British papers carried it in the 1940s? For a photo that’s supposed to be famous, it’s almost impossible to find anything about it before 1998. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat tellingly, this article about this photo in The Times just writes, "On the morning of October 10, 1940, a photograph taken by Fred Morley of Fox Photos was published in a London newspaper." The lack of identification of the newspaper is not due to reluctance of mentioning a competitor, since further on in the article we read, "... the Daily Mirror became the first daily newspaper to carry photographs ...".  --Lambiam 11:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "Hulton Archive", which might mean it was in Picture Post.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of Picture Post imply that it might have appeared in Picture Post? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Not in the Daily Mirror of Thursday 10 October 1940. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
a lot of searches suggest it was the Daily Mail. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I've checked the Mirror for the 11th, and the rest of the week. I've checked the News Chronicle, the Express, and the Herald for the 10th. Mail not on BNA. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
As general context, from my professional experience of picture researching back in the day, photo libraries and agencies quite often tried to claim photos and other illustrations in their collections as their own IP even when they were in fact not their IP and even when they were out of copyright. Often the same illustration was actually available from multiple providers, though obviously (in that pre-digital era) one paid a fee to whichever of them you borrowed a copy from for reproduction in a book or periodical. Attributions in published material may not, therefore, accurately reflect the true origin of an image. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I just discovered this for myself with Bosman 2008 in The National Gallery in Wartime. In the back of the book it says the London Milkman photo is licensed from Corbis on p. 127. I was leaning towards reading this as an error of some kind before I saw your comment. Interestingly, the Wikpedia article on Corbis illustrates part of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Are we sure it was published at the time? I haven't been able to find any meaningful suggestion of which paper it appeared in. I've found a few sources (eg History Today) giving a date in September. I've found several suggesting it tied in with "Keep Calm and Carry On", which of course was almost unknown in the War. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's the thing. There's no direct evidence it was ever published except for a few reliable sources asserting it was. However, I did find older news sources contemporaneous to the October 1940 (or thereabouts) photograph referring to it in the abstract after that date, as if it had been widely published. Just going from memory here, and this is a loose paraphrase, but one early-1940s paper on Google newspapers says something like "who can forget the image of the milkman making his deliveries in the rubble of the Blitz"? One notable missing part of the puzzle is that someone, somewhere, did an exclusive interview with Fred Morley about the photograph, and that too is impossible to find. It is said elsewhere that he traveled around the world taking photographs and celebrated his silver jubilee with Fox Photos in 1950-something. Other than that, nothing. It's like he disappeared off the face of the earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I should also add, the Getty archive has several images of Fred Morley, one of which shows him using an extremely expensive camera for the time. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
And furthermore, I haven't found any uses of it that look like a scan from a newspaper or magazine. They all seem to use Getty's original. DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I've searched BNA for "Fox Photo" and "Fox Photos" in 1940, and while this does turn up several photos from the agency, no milkmen are among them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
No relevant BNA result for "Fox Photo" plus "Morley" at any date. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone checked the Gale Picture Post archive for October 1940? I don't have access to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman?

In Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" (Act 3, Scene 2) Dromio of Syracuse and his master Antipholus of Syracuse discuss Nell the kitchen wench who Dromio says "is spherical, like a globe. I could find out countries in her." After asking about the location of a bunch of countries on Nell (very funny! recommended!), Antipholus ends with: "Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands?" Dromio hints "Belgia, the Netherlands" stood in her privates ("O, sir, I did not look so low.") My question is not about how adequate the comparison is but on whether "Belgia" and "the Netherlands" were the same thing, two synonymous designations for the same thing to Shakespeare (the Netherlands being the whole of the Low Countries and Belgia being just a slightly more literate equivalent of the same)? Or were "the Netherlands" already the Northern Low Countries (i.e. modern Netherlands), i.e. the provinces that had seceded about 15 years prior from the Spanish Low Countries (Union of Utrecht) while "Belgia" was the Southern Low Countries (i.e. modern Belgium and Luxembourg), i.e. the provinces that decided to stay with Spain (Union of Arras)? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at Leo Belgicus, a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later Belgica Foederata was the United Provinces, Belgica Regia the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that Gallia Belgica was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as Inferior Germans, that's for sure! Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
This general region was originally part of Middle Francia aka Lotharingia, possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, Simon Winder's Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver 'Ferdy' Habsburg, whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --Askedonty (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The Netherlands, 50 A.D.
In Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico, the Belgians (Belgae) were separated from the Germans (Germani) by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands.  --Lambiam 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous territory/Indian reservations

Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiyr (talkcontribs) 18:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In Suriname not as territories. There are some Amerindian villages. Their distribution can be seen on the map at Indigenous peoples in Suriname § Distribution.  --Lambiam 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 24

Testicles in art

What are some famous or iconic depictions of testicles in visual art (painting, sculpture, etc)? Pre 20th century is more interesting to me but I will accept more modern works as well. 174.74.211.109 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's Charging Bull (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the Moschophoros (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the Kritios Boy, through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! 178.51.16.158 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The article you're looking for is Artemision Bronze. GalacticShoe (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
And maybe the Cerne Abbas Giant. Shantavira| 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Bake-danuki, somewhat well-known in the West through Pom Poko.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation?

The Habsburg were descended (in the male line) from a female (empress Maria-Theresa). They were the Habsburg rulers of Austria because of her, not because of their Lorraine male ancestor. So their name goes against general European patrilinear naming customs. Sometimes, starting with Joseph II they are called Habsburg-Lorraine, but that goes against the rule that the name of the father comes first (I've never heard that anyone was called Lorraine-Habsburg) and most people don't even bother with the Lorraine part, if they even know about it.

As far as I can tell this mostly occurs in states where the sovereign happens at some point to be a female. The descendants of that female sovereign (if they rule) sometimes carry her family name (how often? that must depend on how prominent the father is), though not always (cf. queen Victoria's descendants). Another example would be king James, son of Mary queen of Scots and a nobody. But sometimes this happens in families that do not rule over anything (cf. the Chigi-Zondadari in Italy who were descended from a male Zondadari who married a woman from the much more important family of the Chigi and presumably wanted to be associated with them).

What do genealogists, especially those dealing with royal genealogies, call this sort of situation? I'm looking for something that would mean in effect "switch to the mother's name", but the accepted technical equivalent if it exists.

Also do you know of other such situations in European history?

In England where William (Orange) and Mary (Stuart) were joint sovereign did anyone attempt to guess what a line descended from them both would be called (before it became clear such a line would not happen)?

178.51.16.158 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It happens a fair amount in European history, but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It's generally a dynastic or patrilineal affiliation connected with the woman which is substituted, not the name of the woman herself. The descendents of Empress Matilda are known as Plantagenets after her husband's personal nickname. I'm not sure that the Habsburg-Lorraine subdivision is greatly different from the Capetian dynasty (always strictly patrilineal) being divided into the House of Artois, House of Bourbon, House of Anjou, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". 178.51.16.158 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
As a sidenote, the waters of this question are somewhat muddied by the fact that Surnames as we know them were not (even confining ourselves to Europe) always a thing; they arose at different times in different places and in different classes. Amongst the ruling classes, people were often 'surnamed' after their territorial possessions (which could have been acquired through marriage or other means) rather than their parental name(s). Also, in some individual family instances (in the UK, at any rate), a man was only allowed to inherit the property and/or title of/via a female heiress whom they married on the condition that they adopted her family name rather than her, his, so that the propertied/titled family name would be continued. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
In the old style of dynastic reckoning, Elizabeth II would have been transitional from Saxe-Coburg to Glucksberg, and even under the current UK rules, descendants of Prince Philip (and only those descendants) who need surnames use Mountbatten-Windsor. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

December 25

Death Row commutations by Biden

Biden commuted nearly all of the Federal Death Row sentences a few days ago. Now, what’s the deal with the Military Death Row inmates? Are they considered "federal" and under the purview of Biden? Or, if not, what’s the distinction? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This page and the various tabs you can click from there include a lot of information. There hasn't been a military execution since 1961 and there are only four persons on the military death row at this point. The President does have the power to commute a death sentence issued under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not clear why President Biden did not address those four cases when he commuted the sentences of most federal death row inmates a few days ago, although two of the four cases (see here) are linked to terrorism, so would likely not have been commuted anyway. Xuxl (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Coca Romano's portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania

I am trying to work out when Coca Romano's coronation portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania were actually completed and unveiled. This is with an eye to possibly uploading a photo of them to this wiki: they are certainly still in copyright in Romania (Romano lived until 1983), but probably not in the U.S. because of publication date.

The coronation took place in 1922 at Alba Iulia. The portraits show Ferdinand and Marie in their full regalia that they wore at the coronation. They appear to have been based on photographs taken at the coronation, so they must have been completed after the event, not before.

A few pieces of information I have: there is no date on the canvasses. The pieces are in the collection of the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu (inventory numbers 2503 for the picture of Marie and 2504 for Ferdinand) , p. 36-37], and were on display this year at Art Safari in Bucharest, which is where I photographed them. If they were published (always a tricky concept for a painting, but I'm sure they were rapidly and widely reproduced) no later than 1928, or in a few days 1929, we can upload my photo in this wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(I've uploaded the image to Flickr, if anyone wants a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54225746973/). - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: