< Misplaced Pages:Reference desk Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:12, 30 April 2008 editSgt. Salt (talk \| contribs)69 edits →Prison violence ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:45, 25 December 2024 edit undoXuxl (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,875 edits →Death Row commutations by Biden
Line 1:		Line 1:
	]{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header\|WP:RD/H}}		<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header\|WP:RD/H}}
	]		]
	]		]
			]
			]
			]
			]</noinclude>

			= December 11 =
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 23}}

			== Shopping carts ==
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 24}}

			Where were the first shopping carts introduced?
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 25}}
			*] and ] say the Humpty Dumpty chain

			*] says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review
	= April 26 =

	== North Korean Opinion on Chinese Socialism since 1980s ==

	Does anyone have quotes or speeches from the North Korean government, or Kim Jong Il, or Kim IL Sung expressing their opinion on Chinese socialism and the market reforms? Do they consider China socialist? --] (]) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Jong-il briefly discusses the issue in , in which he proclaimed to Hu Jintao, "Touring various special economic zones making a great contribution to the ], we were more deeply moved by the Chinese people’s enterprising and persevering efforts and fruits born by them." --] (]) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Southern star ==
	<small>For those who are confused by the following, this question refers to '']''. ] (]) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	What is the "glorious southern star" that McCormick's 1879 lyrics refer to? Sirius? --] (]) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	: Sirius is just as prominent in the Northern Hemisphere and not unique to the South. The Southern Cross and the two pointers, especially the very bright Alpha Centauri (one of the closest stars to Earth), are more likely as they are only visible in the south. Our Australian flag article says "The Southern Cross (or Crux) is one of the most distinctive constellations visible in the Southern Hemisphere and has been used to represent Australia and New Zealand since the early days of British settlement." However this 1879 lyric predates Federation and the current flag by two decades. New Zealand's national anthem has a "triple star" reference that is also unexplained. My guess is the stars in both aren't literal but are metaphors, despite AAF's lyrics being more of a simile (the country will "shine like our glorious southern star"). Perhaps "glorious southern constellation" was too difficult a rhyme.<nowiki>
	</nowiki> I'd say that perhaps the lyrics of both country's anthems have as much astronomical veracity as thay do artistic merit. What really baffles me is who Joyce is and why we are all enjoined to ring her in the first line ] (]) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks Mhicaoidh, I'll never hear that the same way again. ; ) ] (]) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::something to do with the eckcent I think : ) ] (]) 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Presumably those who are old and married can't ring her (just the young and free). ] (]) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	I know nothing about the lyrical issues, but as to the astronomical one: ] is at ] -17° (to the nearest whole degree). It is therefore visible on a clear night at any time on any night (what is called ]) from latitude south of <del>17°S</del>; and some of the time from latitude <del>17°S</del> to 73°N, with the amount of visibility decreasing as you go north. ] is at declination -61°; therefore it is circumpolar only south of latitude <del>61°S</del>, and visible some of the time from <del>61°S</del> to 29°N. Although Sirius is a southerly star for those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere, Alpha Centuari is a much more southerly one. --Anonymous, at about 44°N, 00:37 UTC, April 27, 2008.

	:Interesting to note the current revised updated etc official version has a verse starting "Beneath our radiant Southern Cross..." ] (]) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


	::Anynomous: that is not exactly true. For a circumpolar star, the ] of the observer's latitude plus the complementary angle of the declination must be less than 90 degrees. The minimum altitude of a star is reached when the observer is opposite to it. At the time of minimum altitude, the observer sees the star across the south pole. If there is more than 90 degrees of latitudal distance between the star and the observer, the former cannot be seen.

	::Sirius, then, can only be circumpolar south of 73 degrees S (90-17). Alpha Centauri can only be circumpolar south of 29 degrees (90-61). The further south in declination a star is, the further north an observer on Earth can be for it to still be circumpolar. --] (]) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::*Damn, you're right. Thanks for the correction. I should have drawn myself a diagram of the sky before posting, instead of one of the Earth; it's much easier to think about it that way. --Anonymous, 07:10 UTC, April 28.

	:::By the way, why is there no mention at ] of the traditional lyrics ''Brittannia then shall surely know,/Beyond wide ocean's roll,/Her sons in fair Australia's land/Still keep a British soul.''? Republican POV pushing, perhaps?! ] (]) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::Since this seems to have been part of the original lyrics, I've added it to the article. --] (]) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::::The "traditional lyrics" mentioned by ] were not part of the original lyrics. They were a modification by Professor Stuart Blackie of Edinburgh. The original wording was as shown in verse 4 at ]. To ], you didn't add those words to the article. You duplicated verse 4 of the original lyrics as verse 5, which never existed, and changed the reference from the original 1879 lyrics to the 1900-1909 version. I've reverted the changes so the article is, once again, correct. The "Blackie" version is not shown in the article.

	:::::Addressing the original question, my grandfather corresponded with ], the composer of Advance Australia Fair. The original correspondence is now held in the ]. Although the correspondence doesn't mention what the "southern star" was, I remember being told as a child that Amicus had said that it referred to the ], not an individual star.

	::::::Thanks, and sorry for the mistake. --] (]) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Problem of Poverty ==

	When and why did poverty cease to be a natural condition and become a social problem? ] (]) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	Hmm…good question. I would guess that it came largely with industrialization and the urbanization that ensued. Poverty in rural societies can often be blamed on natural phenomena like crop failures, the weather, and so on. And the feudal system which upheld it was regarded as being divinely ordained from time immemorial. But when vast numbers of peasants began to move to the cities and work in factories, the exploitation of man by man became transparently obvious, and the new classes of capitalist and entrepreneur did not have the reinforcement of long centuries of tradition. Thus, the 19th Century saw new formulations of political theories which stressed the nature of social classes. Some of these philosopher economists called for a revolution (like Karl Marx) and others just wanted society to take on a more responsible and Christian approach to the newly dispossessed in the large slums of the city. It should be added however, that all three of the main monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – exhorted the faithful to charity towards the indigent, the orphaned and widowed, and the sick. Traditionally, these religions did not see such problems as essentially “social”, that is, typical of a class or social structure, and symptomatic of man’s oppression of man. Nevertheless, when such secular interpretations of society began to prevail, they gained considerable force from the altruism of these spiritual beliefs. Thus, the Christian Church had great influence in the abolition of slavery, and in the institution of welfare state ideals of social democracy.

	If you wanted a “best fit” date, I would opt for somewhere about the 1870s, after the Paris Commune, the inauguration of the Working Men Unions, and the publication of Das Capital. ] (]) 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:When peasants did something about it? See ], (addn) then, ] for dates and ]. cheers, ] (]) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::See also ]. That just deals with England though; provisions for doing something with the poor (giving them free food, rounding them up and having them watch chariot races all day, or whatever) go back to at least ancient Rome. As long as there has been urban civilization, the poor have existed as a social problem. ] (]) 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::I don't know just how well Tacitus's famous comment about "bread & circuses" fits the definition of a poverty program. On one hand, its intent was not to stamp out poverty -- the bread dole & the entertainments were available to both rich & poor Romans alike -- but to keep an idle populace too busy to riot over the latest political scandal. On the other, in order to get a token for the bread dole, one had to deal with a government apparatus that operated through political influence and patronage: the average citizen needed the help of a patron in order to get this token, & if one had that kind of connection, she/he wasn't poor. The need for connections also meant the quite real possibility of abuse, so that some had more tokens than they were entitled to.

	:::That said, Helping the poor because they were poor was not a new idea to the audience of the Christian gospels; empathy has been part of humanity as long as history has been recorded. I'm not sure anyone has looked at the history of the perception of poverty; it's only been within the last few generations that "real" historians have looked beyond the affairs of court, battlefield, and cathedrals. -- ] (]) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The answer is actually remarkably simple when you think about it, and when "poverty" is viewed more prosaically, for example as the near-fatal lack of food. Sometime in the nineteenth century communication and agricultural productivity had grown such that the world in general could always feed itself - if it wanted to. The extreme case is illustrative: prior to that period famine might occur because of a shortage of food due to climatic conditions, and an inability to transfer sufficient foodstuffs to the area in time. After that period, famine became a ] problem, and thus depended strongly on the social and political system in place. The classic example is famine in India, where ] has won the Nobel in economics for demonstrating that devastating famine in British India - especially in the 1890s, but also the horrific 1942 famine, which came because of wartime restrictions on food import and transportation - were not problems of production, but problems of distribution. A standard and well-accepted corollary is that famine since the mid-19th has only been found in oppressed societies. Cf India and China over the past 50 years.

	Basically, there was once a time when extreme, life-threatening poverty was something nobody, even visionary ethicists in Tiberius' reign, could believe would never be with us. Sometime in the past few generations it has become possible to believe that the persistence of such poverty is a product of our social structure rather than mechanistic necessity. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::''Insert'' - hang on; the 1942 Indian famine was, fairly obviously, caused by the loss of Burma to the invading Japanese, it acting as a 'bread basket' to India. The lack of famine since Indian independence almost certainly has more to do with the 'Green revolution' than exceptionally sagacious politicians. --] <small>]</small> 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	:The answer, Miranda, is that ceased to be a 'natural condition' when it became a matter of intellectual debate and then a subject of social policy. And the debate on the 'mischievous ambiguity of the word poor' really takes shape in the period between the late 1700s to the publication in England of the '']''. It was ] who was among the first to raise the issue when he objected to the 'political canting language' of the expression 'labouring poor', thus highlighting the confusion between those who worked for their living, and were thus properly labouring people, and those who could not work, and were thus dependant on charity. For him the word 'poor' should really only be used in reference to the latter.

	:It was a standard later taken up by the poor law reformers, who aimed to end this ancient confusion for good and all. Pauperism and poverty would never be perceived in the same terms again. Both those who supported the ] and those who opposed it, from ] to ], met in a battle where poverty, and all the things associated with poverty, were brought ever more directly into the public consciousness. In future it was no longer a case of the poor always being with us, but the manner in which they are with us. ] (]) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Origin of the days of the week ==

	Today is a Saturday because yesterday was a Friday. Yesterday was a Friday because the day before was a Thursday - and so on backward through the centuries. But at some point, the system must have had an arbitrary starting point - someone must have decided that some day was a Monday and future days would follow that order. When did this happen, and has the sequence ever been broken? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	] is a useful article to read along with ]. There have been and continue to be a wide variety of calendars in use around the world, the dominant one reflecting the hegemony of that century's (or millenium's) particular dominant culture . The continuity of our Western one has been "broken" from time to time through ] and you would find ] interesting ] (]) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Can vegans use bone china? ==

	I never thought about it before, but recently read that up to 45% of the mass of fine bone china is ground ox bone, which is mixed with clay and other compounds. As vegans do not use dairy, honey, silk, or leather, I was wondering if they avoided such other products as crockery made from bone ash, with the ox of course being an especially holy animal in many parts of the world. And where does all that ox bone come from anyway? Google sources seem rather reticent on this. And why ox bone, when surely cow and sheep bones would be much more plentiful? ] (]) 06:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:You've started something now, Myles. Speaking as a member of the food chain, would a vegan shake hands, ride horses, or maybe it's only "products" that count? ] (]) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Shaking hands would definitely be fine; it's between consenting agents. Riding horses is probably not very vegan—using animals as beasts of burden and all. Anyway, it's clearly not an issue of just "products"—Veganism is meant to be a holistic philosophy, an approach to life. As for bone china, the answer sounds like no to me—they won't wear leather shoes, they sure won't like pottery made of bones. --] (]) 07:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	OP myles325 back here. Of course, we could just look up a Vegan website, but that would be cheating wouldn't it? ] (]) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers? ==

	In a recent Popular Science article , it is mentioned that "moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers". How prevalent is this in the United States and elsewhere around the world? --] (]) 06:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:In the USA, the official government ] change-of-address process is funded and run by ] companies (famous ] quote: "there is no such thing as junk mail, only junk people"), so there hardly seems any need for movers to get in on it. --] 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Women in American Politics ==

	American women got the vote in 1920 but made almost no progress in breaking into political life in the period before World War 2. What were the reasons for this? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: And made much progress. Would be interested in the answers. ] (]) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The answer is really to be found, Linda, in the structures that support access to political life. Women may have got the vote in 1920 but there was still considerable residual prejudice and discrimination towards them in those very areas and professions, particularly the legal profession, which generally act as the ante-chamber to a political career. Although many women did in fact run for office in the United States in the inter-war period they most often lacked the backing of the major parties. If they did achieve such backing they often had oppose incumbents. Failing in such contests, as they most often did, made their re-endorsement all but impossible. The best most women could hope for from the major parties was to be adopted as auxiliaries, a kind of reserve army of political labour!

	Times have changed a little, I think it only fair to add. In this regard I have to say that I am impressed always by the way history works, by her delightful and delicious sense of irony. It had to come that one day a woman would be a candidate for the most senior office in the land. It had to come one day that a black man would also become a candidate for the most senior office in the land. But for the Democrats to put forward a woman and a black man ''at the same time'', now that really is something! ] (]) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	Thank you for that very interesting answer. Do you mind if I ask which of the two you support? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I'm English, Linda, and thus not allowed to make a choice over such matters! I can tell you who I support for ], though. ] (]) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Mugabe and Zimbabwe ==

	I'm trying to make sense of what's happening at present in Zimbabwe. It would he helpful if one of you could recommend same background reading. I also have a number of general question that someone could perhaps help me with. What is it Mugabe wants? Why have elections at all if he simply refuses to give up power? Is there no possibility that he could be removed, either by an internal coup, or by external pressure? By what process has he brought Zimbabwe to its knees? I'm sorry, I know this is a lot to ask for. It's probably all a reflection on my mental confusion. Light on the darkness would be welcome! ] (]) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Unfortunately our ] article shows clear signs of tendentious editing, so I cannot recommend it. When the first elections were held after the end of ], Mugabe, who had emerged from the ] a hero to most Africans and many across the third world, became Prime Minister, and took a series of steps to placate the white minority, and protect their economic interests. Over time, however, a combination of emigration, absentee landlordism, declines in agricultural productivity, and bad economic policy caused the fact that a vast part of the wealth and land of the country remained in white hands to become a political problem that could not be avoided. Mugabe himself may have always intended a one-party state, though this is disputed by scholars; it seems certain that by the mid-1990s he did. The most relevant fact: he's had a hard life, and is 84 or something. He's almost certainly senile. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Oh, here's an effort from that is several times better than anything we have at the moment. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The two most recent publications that may be of use to you, ZZT9, are ''Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe'' by Martin Meredith and ''The Day After Mugabe: Prospects for Change in Zimbabwe'', a collection of papers edited by Guguletho Moyo and Mark Ashurst.

	There is surely no fable more appropriate to the fate of Zimbabwe under the moronic Mugabe than that of '']''. In April 1980, as the country celebrated its independence, Mugabe was told by ], President of nearby Tanzania, that he had inherited a jewel and that he should keep it that way. Well, he has cut the throat of the goose and thrown away the jewel; for what he wanted above all was power and then more power. It did not really matter how this was attained, even if it meant the wholesale destruction of a prosperous farming sector by 'war veterans'; even if it means forever dwelling on the supposed crimes of the colonial past, as the rest of Africa moves on and forward.

	He will not be removed internally because the forces behind him, particularly those responsible for the Matabeleland Massacre, fear the future too much. He will not be removed by external pressure because ] and the like have not sufficient determination to stand up to him, pandering to his old myths and illusions. In the end Mugabe seems to have proved one point and one point only-] may have been right after all. ] (]) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Smith ''right''? About what?
	::You're quite wrong about the prosperity of the farming sector, actually. It had already begun to collapse in the mid 1990s. Few postcolonial nations can preserve agricultural productivity without extensive land reform, anyway. India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana: all have had to go through it. The only difference in Zimbabwe is that land ownership is divided along racial lines - the crimes of the colonial past are still very much in their present. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	ZZT9, I've adapted an answer I gave to a question on Western Imperialism, which appeared here last March. I think this might put things in a more general perspective for you. Regards. ] (]) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Sub-Saharan Africa is a huge place, and there are indeed tragic examples where colonial history has had the direst of consequences, economically and politically: Mozambique and Angola spring to mind, countries all but destroyed by war and civil war. However, Africa is also a great continent, with a great and energetic people, badly served by its politicians. How long are we to forward the excuse of colonialism as a justification-and it has become a justification-for backwardness and the sheer failure of potential?

	:Take the example, if you will, of the Republic of Ireland, which had an experience of colonialism far older and of land expropriation far more severe than the least fortunate of the African colonies. Although free for almost a hundred years now it was dominated for decades after independence by a reactionary Church hierarchy. Despite this, its transformation over the past twenty years or so into one of the most dynamic of European economies and societies is especially worthy of note, particularly when the country possesses little in the way of natural resources. I wish I could see similar signs of renaissance and resurgence in Africa; but I can not.

	:There is a word in Swahili which explains the plight of Africa far better than outdated notions of imperialism: it is ''WaBenzi'', meaning boss or, better still, big shot. The ''WaBenzi'', the undeclared tribe which crosses all borders, is, in my estimation, by far the greatest of Africa's misfortunes. Take the example of Malawi. In 2000, following the death of Hastings Banda, the former dictatorial president, the British government increased aid to the country by some £20 million. The ''WaBenzi'' promptly celebrated by spending almost £2 million, yes, £2 million, on a fleet of 39 S-class Mercedes, in a country where the roads are hardly fit for carts. Take one more example. In 2002 Mwai Kibaki came to power in Kenya on an anti-corruption platform, announcing that ''Corruption will now cease as a way of life in Kenya''. The very fist law passed by the new Parliament was to increase politicians' salaries by over 170%, to about £65,000pa ($125,000). Beyond this, each MP was awarded a package of allowances, including a grant of £23,600 to buy a duty free car, all in a country where the average per capita income is £210 ($406) ''per annum''.

	:I could go on like this, but it's really too depressing. You will find all of the details of these examples and more in ''How African leaders spend our money'', an article by Aidan Hartley, published in the London edition of ''The Spectator'' in June 2005. I have visited several African countries, and I love the people and the place. But we have to stop making excuses for failure, to stop draping history around the necks of Africans as a catch-all explanation for their perceived shortcomings. If Africa is to move forward we need to understand the real causes of failure; and these are far closer to home.

	:Much too much is made of the deleterious effects of imperialism in explaining the failure of many modern African states. India, Malaysia, and Singapore were all under British control, but this has not hampered the development of modern economies and mature political structures. In Africa imperialism has become a crutch, intended to explain and excuse failure. In many countries corruption has become the dominant mode of political exchange. Imperialism did not destroy Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe did. ] (]) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Clio's analysis is indeed similar to several that have appeared in various sources over the past few years. While there is much truth in the stories of great corruption and even more in the tragic effects of AIDS, there are essential errors in most such comparisons, however; in the specific case of Zimbabwe, the problem is, as I said, one of the structure of land ownership. The relevant comparison should be not Ireland - in which vast tracts of the best land were no longer in the hands of frequently absentee Anglo-Irish landowners but Pakistan, where feudal overlords supported by the Raj were left control of their land in 1947, and as a consequence Pakistan has not been able to democratize and is, indeed, more corrupt than Zimbabwe. (A pattern replicated in miniature across the states of India, and indeed Malaysia and Indonesia.) And Clio's point about the Irish miracle is also true in this respect: if Europe were to admit Zimbabwe into the EU, what a miracle of growth would result! A fair price for their agricultural exports, and a destination for their unemployed and European capital... much as happened in Ireland throughout the 1980s.
	::More generally, it has been understood since ]' landmark study of African trading boards in the 1980s that the structures of imperialism persist and continue to stifle growth in sub-Saharan countries. In Zimbabwe it is land tenure and in West Africa the monopolistic cronyism of the great oil and coffee companies. This argument has been effectively expanded by the Turkish economist ] in work that won him the ]: as well as such things can ever be demonstrated, he has shown that in places where the occupiers set up "extractive" economic and political institutions, growth has been disappointing; in places where they set up "supportive" institutions, growth has been good. This conclusion is broadly true, regardless of the location of the colony or the identity of the occupier. So it is, indeed, the case that the numbers indicate that the cold undead hand of imperialism stifles the best hopes of these people.
	::That does not mean that the arguments such as those in the Spectator will go away any time soon. It has always been a source of amusement to me that those who most subscribe to the persistence of institutions at home, and indeed sometimes revere them, are quickest to deny that institutions abroad have any real effect. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 23:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== A good war? ==

	I need some help preparing for a school debate. The motion is Was the Second World War A Good War? I will be arguing against. If you can please help me with some details, arguments against the justice and effectivness of the British war effort. Was Churchill really all that he is made out to be? Please be as precise as possible. I love this page, I love how much some people seem to know. Yours sincerely, John Fitzgerald. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Oh dear. Very difficult to argue that a war fought to defend your homeland from the Nazis wasn't a pretty decent war. Best to try something they aren't expecting. Reframe it in terms of the "world" part. Did, when Britain went to war, it have the right to declare war on behalf of the entire Empire and expose Australia to danger and India to revolt? --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Actually, Britain didn't declare war in 1939 on behalf of the whole ], as it was able to do in 1914. Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all made their own declarations of war, while in Australia ] somehow persuaded the Australians to go to war as a matter of imperial duty without actually declaring war. The lawyers had to cover up for this, later on. ] 13:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Tut, really? I knew there was some disputation in Australia, but I assumed it was because the G-G had happily informed everyone that they were off to defend Singapore tomorrow, pack a toothbrush. Turns out it was Menzies. The Menzies Virtual Museum says "Prime Minister Menzies declares that Australia is at war with Germany. This reflects the attitude of the majority of Australians who considered that Britain's declaration of war on Germany automatically committed Australia to the conflict in their desire to provide traditional support for Britain", which sounds to me like protesting too much. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::The exact text of Menzies' speech is "Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." Schmindependent. Anyway, still holds for India. Focus on that, and Roosevelt's commonly expressed view that Churchill's rabid imperialism was eating into the justice of the war effort. Your best shot. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::On the main issue, we've debated it before on this reference desk, and I remember putting the case that the Second World War certainly didn't achieve any of the war aims the British set out with, such as the defence of brave little Poland. By the end of the War, the Allies were able to persuade themselves that the Germans and the Japanese had been so wicked that it had been necessary to crush them, whatever the initial aims... the trouble with this is (1) that the worst wickednesses of the Axis powers were made possible by the War: hard to believe, for instance, that what we call the Holocaust could have happened under peace-time conditions; and (2) that Stalin and his thugs were no better than Hitler and his thugs, and leaving much of central and Eastern Europe under the domination of one or the other came to much the same thing. Churchill certainly took that view. you can also make the case that the British defeats in the Far East (in particular, the ]) led to an earlier end for the Empire than would otherwise have been the case, and that with more time the independence of India and Pakistan could have been more peaceful (there, you get into deep waters). Appeasement was an essential policy for buying time. With the benefit of hindsight, it's at least arguable that averting the War entirely, with such concessions as could have been bought, would have turned out better in the end. ] 13:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I second the "Oh, dear." You want specifics, but that is too much like doing your homework for you for me. I can suggest a tack: Great Britain capitulates under ]. GB gets good terms, even better than ], because Hitler is ], and Britain knows it. Germany gets to concentrate on the ]s and takes them out of the picture but gets ]. Britain rises up against a weakened Germany (who still have ] aside from the ]s and who have lost their ] to ]) when the US comes in, as they would have had to eventually, especially with Winston in Washington playing the gadfly the whole time. The Nazis capitulate because their now-sane leadership, perhaps headed by ], see that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. --] (]) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The barest assessment of World War II I've heard goes something like this: "If we didn't win, we'd all be speaking German now." My response is, what's wrong with speaking German? It seems to suit the Germans perfectly well. People cannot readily conceive of a radical change in their lives so they presume the status quo must be preferable. This is folly. "Man will even get used to the gallows." ] (]) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:The way to win this argument either way is to be the one to define what "good" means. You could argue that it was avoidable. You could argue that bad things happened to the world because of it (Cold War, Berlin Wall). "Good" is such a vague word. Make it mean what you need it to mean. "If 'good' means "brought peace to the world", then WWII was not a good war because..." "If 'good' means "it was a war which we had no choice but to fight", then WWII was not good because we should have seen what was coming and stopped it before it got out of hand, etc. etc. ] (]) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::You could also argue point of view. WWII was a great war for Communism. China, Russia, Eastern Europe...to them it was a good war. To the Jews was it a good war? If you asked anyone from that time period, I doubt they'd say "Oh, that was such a wonderful time to live! It was such a good war. ''Everyone'' loved it! We all cried when it was over because we just couldn't bear to see it go." Yeah right. ] (]) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't think there's much doubt that the Allies fought (on the whole) a decent war, if war can be decent. The question John Fitzgerald has to debate is whether it was a Good War, and that's rather different. ] 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Of course. They won and they were defending themselves. That makes it as good as it can be. Still, though, if you want to argue the "good" point, get control of the word's meaning within the debate, and you've won. ] (]) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	: ] What is a good war? -- ] (]) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Right. That's what Wrad said. I was wondering that myself: what is a good war? I answered myself, "A good war is one that is in the best interests of the country in question." Was WWII worth the expenditure of life and treasure it cost the UK in terms of the outcome? Was there another way to achieve an equivalent result, or was there a different conceivable outcome undesirable on the face of it that would have yet been preferable to the slaughter and destruction the war wrought in Britain and its empire? I want in on this debate, dammit. --] (]) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The bottom line here is that human deaths in the millions are not regarded as acceptable, even tolerable to today's PC society. One is usually too many -- the international response to the execution of Saddam Hussein was widely condemnatory. Laymen who take a non-historical look back at the past judge things by today's standards of right and wrong, good and bad. In the 40s, knowledge of the concentration camps was limited. If it wasn't, can we presume the average citizen of an Allied nation would have cared? We would like to think so, but who knows... ] (]) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	: Nien, ist war nicht ein gutten strum. -] (]) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::The concept the OP is debating seems more closely allied to the ancient concept of the ] -- our article on this is useful. ] (]) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::The argument "WWII was NOT a Good War" does not necessarily imply that the expansion of the Third Reich and its barbarity - after they had occurred - should not have been countered by military measures. As such, it qualifies as a Just war (see Brainy Babe above).
	:::It may be argued in this context that Hitler´s´rise to power was far from irresistible, it may be argued that a great many diplomatic / economic measures were missed or severely fumbled by other European powers in deescalating the emerging problem.
	:::I am not a historian (and rather naive, to boot), but I fail to comprehend (inter many alia) why Germany was allowed to embark on a massive program of rearmament. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the ], the ] of Austria or the ] seem to be pitiful examples of chances which were poorly handled .
	:::It may be argued that WWII could have been avoided (or could have been a pre-emptive strike against the nascent German Reich), had the actors on the political stage shown more determination. To call an avoidable war which cost the lives of 60 million people a "Bad War" must remain a reasonable argument.
	:::On the other hand, without WWII many on this desk - including me - would not have been conceived and would not have been born. Whether tis alone makes it a Good War, however, is questionable.
	:::--] (]) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	One could argue that it was better to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo than to let them divide the post-war world into spheres of occupation pending a nuclear WW3 between East and West. But it was a war that began very badly, with appeasement by Chamberlain when Hitler's despotism could have been nipped in the bud by encouraging the anti Hitler plotters in Germany, and that ended badly with the holocaust, terror bombing by firebombs and nukes by the allies and Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and the failure (like after WW1) to implement the grand pledges of freedom in the postwar world, with the denial of self-determination in the colonies resulting in more decades of conflict. ] (]) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I think if I were John Fitzgerald (the OP), I shouldn't introduce the Just War arguments into the debate myself, but hold them in reserve and hope they wouldn't become too central, because it seems to me more arguable that WWII was a just war than that it was a good war. If JF agrees to argue 'good war' by reference to 'just war', then that seems to set hares running. Surely better (as Wrad says) to define 'good' in terms which help the case, which will I think be different from just. ] 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	Ah, John, how ''wonderful''; you have fallen on the right side of the debate; I envy you so much. You can safely ignore the discouraging 'oh dears', the suggestion that your argument will have to be based on dubious grounds. You will understand why by the time I have finished. I assume you know your opponents? Well, if so, you might just drop a hint that you’re having trouble working up an effective rebuttal to notions of a 'just' war, because the chances are that they will fall back on this sophistry as the main prop of their argument! Your strength is to dismiss abstractions, with all of the force you can muster; to focus always on specifics. Demolish them with cases, John, demolish them with examples!

	Anyway, put out of your mind the suggestion that we were fighting to defend our homeland from the Nazis; we were not, not by any measure. We declared war on Germany; Germany did not declare on war on us! We declared war for what? For Poland, for the freedom of Poland? I'm now finding it difficult to stop myself from laughing! Xn4 has given you some useful hints. Appeasement was not just a good policy: it was an ''essential'' policy. More than that, it would have been far better, in every respect, not to have gone to war in the first place. In July 1940, in what he called his ‘final appeal to reason’, Hitler called for an end to the conflict;

	''The continuation of this war will only end with the complete destruction of one of the two warring parties...I see no reason that should compel us to continue this war.''

	He was wrong about one thing: the continuation of the war brought the complete destruction of one of the parties, yes, but it also brought the near destruction of the other. The roller-coaster ride I am about to take you on is based, for the most part, on my reading of ''Homan Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization'' by Nicholson Barker, which I have not long finished. If you have the time dip into it. Be ruthless: use the index!

	So, was the Second World War a 'good' war, understanding good to mean that it brought some benefit to those who needed help? The answer is not at all obvious, is it? Think of our leadership, think of the adventurism of Churchill, the tyrant of the glittering phrase. Soon after hearing of Hitler's 1940 peace offer ] wrote in her diary "It's too tantalising since there's no shadow of a doubt we will reject any such suggestion. Now I suppose Churchill will again tell the world that we are going to die on the hills and the seas, and then we shall proceed to do so." A pretty accurate prediction, don't you think?

	The problem with Churchill was that he was the eternal schoolboy caught up in the excitement of the battle, a man with little or no long-term vision; no understanding of the political consequences of fighting on the beaches and the landing grounds, in this place and in that; no understanding of the consequences for his country or its Empire of unrestrained and prolonged conflict. In 1945 he had heaps of moral authority. The trouble is he had almost nothing else; an Adam without the fig-leaf. Oh, sorry, he did have something else: he was also the chief architect of imperial deconstruction, rather ironic when one considers his past history! Break through the circles of his rhetoric and the picture that emerges is not particularly uplifting.

	What Churchill was really interested in was not an 'anti-Fascist' crusade; for it is doubtful that he ever really understood the nature of Fascism, a concept altogether too modern; he certainly never saw any fault in Mussolini, or danger in Japan. He wanted a scrap with Germany; that's it. His scrap, moreover, was not, by and large, with German soldiers but with German civilians, waged with the ruthless weapons of blockade and bombardment, bombardment increasingly delivered without any degree of moral restraint. After all, if the Nazis were bad, why should we not be worse? As the civilian populations, swollen by refugees, of Poland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands faced starvation, Churchill refused to let food aid through the Navy's blockade of Europe. In justification he told Parliament in 1941 that the enemy would use fats to make bombs, potatoes to make fuel and that 'the plastic materials now so largely used in the construction of aircraft are made of milk.' Yes, he did! In October of that year ] asked;

	''Is the Allied cause any further advanced today because of the starvation of children? Are Hitler’s armies any less victorious than if those children had been saved? Are Britain's children better fed today because these millions of former allied children have been hungry or died? Can you point to one benefit that has been gained from this holocaust?''

	There is, of course, no answer. Nor is there any answer, when one thinks about it, to the effectiveness, or the desirability, of the bombardment. In 1941 it was estimated that only one in five British bombers was dropping their payload within seventy-five miles of their designated targets. Because of this targets were deliberately selected so that, even if the aircraft missed, there would be a 'bonus' in civilian deaths, and thus the weapons would not be wasted. But even this brought no discernable benefits, either in the dislocation of production or the collapse of morale. So what was needed? Why, more and bigger bombs; more and more dead civilians. Neither Churchill, nor ] nor anyone else in the British command seems to have considered just exactly what impact the German Blitz on Britain had.

	Be ready for the argument, John, that the war was fought to prevent the persecution of the Jews. It was not. Churchill showed almost no interest in the German persecution. More seriously, the twin weapons of blockade and bombardment impacted most severely on Jewish people; for as rations reduced everywhere they reduced even more severely in the ghettos; as the bombing took hold it was Jewish families who were among the first to be evicted to make way for those whose home had been destroyed. Indeed, the Final Solution itself was in every respect one of the direct consequences of the Second World War. It is inconceivable, in other words, it its absence.

	So, we fought to destroy Hitler and lost all perspective in the process. Yes, he was a tyrant. Yes, he was a butcher. But we fought alongside a ] who was no less tyrannical, no less of a butcher and, in the end, ]. At huge cost, both human and material, we fought to free Poland from Hitler...only to give it to Stalin.

	Watch you pacing; breath carefully; take note of your timing, aim slowly, aim carefully. You'll demolish them! ] (]) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	CLIO I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU!!!! J Fitzgerald 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::Aww, shucks! Use 'we' if you like, John; it will serve to give your argument greater power and immediacy! ] (]) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:But ''please'' don't say "we" unless you are actually old enough to have been alive at the time! (unless you feel that you contributed by having been present as a twinkle in a forefather's eye) ] (]) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	How about deaths that occurred because information from the Enigma project could not be released?] 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Economy and voting in Canada ==

	In Canada and its provinces, does the economic cycle affect the outcome of elections? Are particular parties, or the incumbent, more or less likely to be elected during or immediately after a recession? ]] 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	: You could start with ] and then compare ]. ] (]) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Postage stamp value ==
	I have a few stamps, and I can’t seem to figure out how much they’re worth. They don’t seem to say on it, but don’t look like the first class forever stamps described in ]. I found a picture of one, http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/01/08/postagerate.hike.ap/storyvert.stamp.ap.jpg. Can anybody tell me what it’s value is? Thanks! ] (]) 12:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I'm not an American, but from what I can find, the value of this stamp in 2005 was $0.39.. The value of the stamp was raised by $0.02 between then, but that shouldn't matter. Since 1861, the law has been that, if a stamp has no postage price indicated, it is postally worth the purchase price, so that would be $0.39. ] \| ] 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Are you sure? In the UK, if a stamp says "1st" or "2nd" on its face, its value always matches the current price of first class or second class postage, as the case may be: so its value can change. ] 13:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:The picture you link seems to be from , the caption to the picture being "New first-class and U.S. non-denominated 39-cent stamp." From the US Postal service site (usps.gov), we can indeed confirm that the stamp is valued at 39 cents -- ] (]) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The U.S. postal system has had numerous rate increases over the years. Sometimes they expect the rates to go up but do not have final authorization for and determination of the higher rate, so the have left it off the new stamps, creating years of confucion when someone finds some of the non-denominated stamps. They latest move was to makr them "USA First Class Forever"" meaning that even if they cost 41 cents they will carry your 99 cent first class letter a few years later. It also provides a bit of pat-on-the-back affirmation to a country badly needing it. ] (]) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== superstition ==

	What does Islam say about superstition? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:If you accept ''a priori'' that there is some difference between religion and superstition then, well, Islam's stand on superstition is strongly disapproving. (If you don't, read that sentence as saying "Islam's stand on ''other'' supersitions...".) The great ], for example, was the first to clearly delineate what was the province of astronomy and what was that of astrology, and explicitly based his refutation of astrology on its lack of rationality, which he believed conflicted with Islamic precepts. The more restrictive schools of Islam view ] traditions within Islam, such as the veneration of saints called ]s and the celebration of ], Mohammed's birthday, as "superstition". The word is loaded with negative baggage as Islam itself is portrayed as being born in reaction to the superstition in which the Arabs were sunk during Mohammed's lifetime. Of course, there's also , which tends to undercut that slightly. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Grammatical Revolutionary-War question ==

	I've been deliberating as to whether or not this belongs here or at the Language reference desk, but I figured that this has to do with connotation, not definition.

	Q: Why is it that the battles ''won'' by the minutemen in the Revolutionary War use the preposition "of," and the battles ''lost'' by the minutemen use the preposition "at"? (e.g., ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , etc.) Does it have to do with some obscure, undefined implication I'm unaware of? Also, now that I've linked them, I could further ask why the battles in which the minutemen were defeated lack articles of their own. --]] 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	: The redlinks in your question seems to indicate that Misplaced Pages uses the "of" construction either way. See ], ] and ]. ] (]) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Ah. So then, a better question would be why my stupid history textbook insists on the opposite. --]] 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::Precisely because it is a stupid textbook? ] (]) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::Ha ha, agreed; thanks for your help. ;-) --]] 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Violence against women ==

	What does Islam say about violence against women and girls? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:You'd best read ] for that question. --]] 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	<br />
	:"Islam" doesn't have one opinion regarding women (or violence against them in particular). There are a large number of muslims in the world and their values/beliefs vary quite vastly. On the one extreme you have fairly progresive types of belief (see this ) and on the other extreme, you have some ] who practise such things as ] (which in some cases are the result of a sexual assault upon the victim).] (]) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::We have more specific articles. Check out ], which is not especially great but has useful references for further reading, and ], which includes many names. ] (]) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Assisted reproductive technology ==

	What does Islam say about A.R.T.? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: Islam is not a monolithic entity. For these and other questions, it may be best to refer to a few ]s and ask them in person their interpretation. (Is that the correct plural?) ] (]) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Looks like .
	::] (]) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, technically it's "a'immat". ] (]) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:One position is given in . ] 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	:You might try ] for a list of readings to start with. ] (]) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	== friend or enemy ==

	Is there a compiled list of things which typically or actually made a ruler of a conquered land a friend or enemy of Rome? <small> ] (]) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) </small>
	: Foreign rulers were perceived as friendly or hostile to Rome for a number of reasons, which included actual or perceived acts -- or the usual rationalizations that allowed that city to either declare war -- or evade the issue. I mention the later because John Rich makes the interesting observation in his "Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic" (in ''War and society in the Roman World'', ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley ) that despite the Roman's well-deserved reputation for being eager to wage war, that there were occasions when various elites within Rome found good reason ''not'' to go to war. One reason being that, the glory for defeating an enemy of Rome might give a political opponent an undesired advantage. So the answer is no. -- ] (]) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Somehow I find it odd that no scholar has ever compiled a list of conditions be they common or atypical under which a decision was made by Rome to execute a conquered ruler or to let a conquered ruler live if for no other reason that as a guide for its governors. For instance, refusing to renounce all but the Sun God as Divine seems to be one of the first conditions that might be put on such a list. <small> ] (]) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:::Such matters are determined by political considerations, and by political considerations only. These will always vary according to circumstances, and cannot be subject to any form of calculus. The Roman Empire expanded by a mixture of pragmatism and opportunism. If it had proceeded in the fashion you suggest I doubt it would have got much beyond the banks of the Tiber. ] (]) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::Even political considerations have a tendency to consist of more then one independent variable. I can list a ton of things I need to do and avoid doing to keep my boss happy, all with several variables that must be weighed. Certainly a Roman governor would have a list of things to do and not to do to keep Caesar happy, including who to execute and who not to execute following a military campaign. Even political considerations have rules. For instance, I might want to offer a new client a piece of the bosses' candy but then I might also need to taste test it first to be sure I can recommend it to the client. A political consideration rule might be to forget the candy unless the client is wealthy or forget the candy if the client is overweight. <small> ] (]) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:::::Yes, you are absolutely right, 71.100, but in saying this you are perhaps beginning to understand the impossibility, or impracticality, of producing the kind of historical calculus that you originally set out in search of. Just think: how many governors, how many emperors, how many provinces, over how many hundreds of years? The number of variables one would have to take into consideration would be simply enormous. Yes, I suppose you could set out to accumulate such evidence, as if you were piecing together an explanatory mosaic. I suspect this might very well be a task that would fascinate ], providing a possible theme for one of his inspired 'fictions'; because, at the end of your labours, you may very well discover that you have written a complete history of the Roman Empire! ] (]) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Logical Atomism ==

	Clio the Muse, please do you know the key to the method of logical atomism in Russell's philosophy? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:The reference desk is for public queries. If you wish to address one editor, please write on her talkpage. ] (]) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Haha, yes it just makes us mediocre contributers to the reference desk feel bad. Yours, ] (]) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	::See ]. ] (]) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	The key, J E, lies in his assertion that logic is the essence of philosophy, where logic is taken to mean mathematical logic. Its importance is that it provides the means of effecting powerful and philosophically revealing analyses of structures, most particularly, the related structures of propositions and facts. Have a look at ''Logic as the Essence of Philosophy''. Happy reading! ] (]) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Proportion of the world with a high school diploma ==
	{{done}}

	Can Anyone give me an estimate of what percentage of the world has completed secondary education? With a good source of course. --]<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I deleted my earlier answers, as they were only for current enrollment. , from the World Bank, looks like it has the answer. From what I understood from Table Three, it would be 27.8% of adults aged 25 and over. ] (]) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much :) --]<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	= April 27 =

	== Schooling in America ==

	Does education in the US proceed with first reading, writing and arithmetic (elementary schools) followed by introduction to significant topics with each year going a bit deeper into the topic (grade school) followed by even greater depth, basic expansion and introduction to preparation for a trade or for higher learning (junior high) followed by even greater depth and expansion of trades or preparation for higher learning (high school) followed by even greater depth and specialization of a trade or higher learning (Junior college or tech school) followed by higher learning (college) followed by graduate and post-graduate studies (University) or is there some other basis for year to year progress through the educational system? <small> ] (]) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:I wouldn't necessarily call that the most accurate description. If all you're wondering is whether you have the names right, you generally do (though most schools I know don't differentiate between "elementary" and "grade" school. The notion of progression is there--it could hardly fail to be in any schooling system...I cannot conceive of a real life school system that taught students advanced subjects first and gradually worked down to basic skills like literacy and addition. But your chain of events seems to suggest that one is gradually prepared for a specific trade, and that kind of vocational focus is rare in schools below high school in the U.S. Honestly, even in high school, vocational classes (depending on the school) are at best a small portion of the degree--most of us still hold to the "comprehensive school" model that believes all students should be given a background in a wide spread of subject areas, so as not to limit student career choices post-high school. It is fair to say that junior colleges are more focused on vocational instruction, and that college and beyond continues that instruction, but the system is not quite as carefully constructed and linear as you envision.

	:If you're wondering how someone "progresses" year to year, generally it's due to age--one year older equals one grade higher. Yes, generally you work on more advanced stuff as each year goes by, but a student can easily take French one year, skip that class for a year or two and then return to the language. Prerequisites (in high school and above) are designed to make sure students take courses that prepare them for more advanced classes before they can enroll in those advanced classes, but in practice it is not at all strange for a student to intentionally, say, take a "tough" junior year followed by an "easy" senior year, merely by adjusting the classes they wish to choose. I'm sure others will have their own perspectives, but that's the way it looks in a reasonably wealthy school district in the Pacific Northwest, according to a high school teacher of history and literature. :-) Yours truly, ] editing as ] (]) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::The main reason I'm asking is that when statistical results of a study were recently presented to me that at first I was lost owing to the good number of years since I was deep into the subject but now that I have revisited the subject my comprehension seems to be ten fold what it was since I last cracked a book. I know a lot has to do with the new tools the Internet provides along with software like MathCad but it is still like the time in between has allowed me to subconsciously digest the material such that my comprehension can be so much better now. I'm wondering if getting all of the basics down in the 5th grade might not be better for full comprehension in the 10th versus one piece one year and another piece the next year resulting in still incomplete comprehension by the 12th. In other words is there a fixed curriculum for each grade everywhere that builds on the previous year or just haphazard pieces presented in a haphazard fashion just to fill the years. <small> ] (]) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>
	:::In most school systems, mathematics is taught in a ''cumulative'' way, for convenience. It certainly is easier to teach someone advanced statistics if they already know lots about arithmetic and algebra. In theory is is possible to completely change the order of topics so that topics that are usually considered difficult come first and those usually considered easy come afterwards. But it would require a lot of ingenuity on the part of teachers and for most students it would not give any advantages. I think you found your comprehension much better when you came returned to statistics after some years for a combination of reasons. Many adults returning to study find the topics much easier the second time round and wonder why they found them so difficult the first time. As an adult learner you are not under any pressure to compare yourself with others in the class, so you are not pre-programmed to fail. You are more used to reading texts and so you can understand the phrases in the textbook more easily. When it comes to calculations, you can see that they are done for a purpose and not just as an abstract exercise. ] (]) 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Truth ==

	Does the truth have to be honest? For example if someone passed by me while I had my eyes closed. And then someone else came and asked, "did you see anyone pass here?" And I said, no. Is that the truth or honest? ] (]) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I cannot follow your logic. If you did not see you did not see! Your truth is relative...and honest. ] (]) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::There's the literal question and the implied question. You decided to answer the literal one which, as Clio says, is true for you. You might like our article ]. ] (]) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Let's say for instance that the person asking the question is a detective. Most likely he would ask "Did anyone pass?" with further questioning if he sensed any deception. In the case of criminal pursuit an answer perceived to be deceptive might result in your being held as an accessory. So, yes, under some circumstances you may not have been completely truthful even though you were quite honest about the facts. <small> ] (]) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:::I'd argue that this is why the courts (in the U.S. at least) demand that witnesses swear not only to tell "the truth" but "the ''whole'' truth". Your answer of "no" is the truth, but not the whole truth--saying "no, I had my eyes closed" would meet that standard, I think. ] editing as ] (]) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:This would amount to ] by omission, especially if you knew someone did pass. --] (]) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::But it might be the whole truth if 99 had no sensory awareness that anyone had passed by. The above answers seem to assume that even though 99's eyes were closed, he/she was still aware that someone had passed by, maybe because he/she heard them, felt a slight breeze, or smelled something different - or was later told that someone had passed by. None of things may be the case. -- ] (]) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::99 would probably not be asking the question if 99 were completely unaware that someone had passed when 99's eyes were closed. <small> ] (]) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	: The answer is "Yes" or "No"; "I believe so", "I don't think so", or "I don't know" for uncertainties. ] (]) 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::There are two types of truth. We'll call them absolute and relative. An absolute truth is something which is true regardless of whether people know it or not. For example, it is true that someone walked by you, whether you saw them or not. By this definition, your saying no one passed you is a lie. A relative truth is whatever you think the truth is. Since you didn't see anyone walk by, you can honestly think no one did and honestly say they didn't. It all depends on what your definition is. ] (]) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	: You may find the concept of ] worth researching. Although you may find the Misplaced Pages article insufficient, it contains references to some more works you may find more useful. -- ] (]) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	Alas, there would seem to be far too many lawyers, or would be lawyers, here and not nearly enough philosophers! ] (]) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Well, my philosophy is that there are absolute truths that you ''can'' know about. I know that many philosophies think otherwise, but other people can explain those! ] (]) 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	Methinks that too many follow the ]. ] (]) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Therefore I will try a philosophic evaluation of all answers. I don't know how to defend an "I don't know" response—you don't know if you saw someone? Of course you know if you saw someone or not. Was it a hallucination maybe? If your eyes were closed, the truthful answer is "no". You did not see anyone because you saw nothing. If you say "yes", you are lying. Imagine a follow-up question: ''were they wearing a red shirt?'' You can only say "I don't know" because you lied and you didn't actually see the person. ] 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Why are we all assuming that "Yes", "No", or "I don't know" are all that someone can say? "I wouldn't know for sure: my eyes were closed." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If this is a philosophical dilemma in which yes and no are the only responses, then maybe we have to play games with words, but given access to the wider range of reasonable responses, I see no reason why this poses us a challenge. ] (]) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Tried that, closed my eyes, fell over, and some passer by tripped over me.--] (]) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	I think I may just risk a final statement here. I read the question as a philosophical paradox on the nature of truth itself; of truth in its relative and in its absolute form. There are certain truths that can only ever be relative, given the limits of perception. If you did not see you did not see; that's it; that is the ''only'' possible answer. What can be seen from the eye of God, or in the eye of another, is quite immaterial. Everything beyond 'I did not see' is verbiage; or in philosophical terms, it is nonsense. Let me make 99.226's question more specific, and then perhaps the lawyers among you will understand. 'Did you see Hannibal ride past on an elephant?' Now, do you ''still'' think 'I wouldn't know for sure: my eyes were closed' was a perfectly reasonable answer?! Ah, well, I suppose some of you may very well, but I would simply ask the others to remember always the admonition of ]-''Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'' (Or was their really a hippopotamus in Russell's rooms at Cambridge?!) ] (]) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== emperor maro ==

	Hi folks,
	Titus Flavius Vespasianus became emperor Vespasian of the Flavian dynasty, meanwhile (actually a bit earlier), Publius Vergilius Maro just became Virgil. Does that mean if Virgil had been an emperor instead he would have been emperor Maro of the Vergilian dynasty? t.i.a. ] (]) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Well, three emperors were named "Titus Flavius"; one was Titus Flavius Domitianus (]), and two were Titus Flavius Vespasianus (] and ]). We distinguish them so it is less confusing but I don't think contemporaries called them by different names. Virgil was always known as Virgil (well...sometimes he was called Maro, although maybe that is just a medieval thing). ] (]) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::It is a trait of the Eighteenth Century too:

	::::'Twas such as these the ''Rural Maro'' sung
	::::To the full ''Roman'' Court, in all it's height
	::::Of Elegance and Taste. The sacred Plow
	::::Employ'd the Kings and Fathers of Mankind,
	::::In antient Times.
	:::::::], 'Spring' (1728) ll.55-57.
	::] (]) 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Prison violence ==

	There doesn't seem to be any summary of violence in prisons in Misplaced Pages... There's an article on ], but nothing on other forms of violence, e.g. murder, and not even a mention in the main article on ]s. I myself do not know anything about the subject, so what's the best way to help? --] (]) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:The best way, Sgt. Salt, would to do some basic research, if you are so minded, and then either add the information you manage to uncover to the existing prisons article, or perhaps write an independent piece, if you feel this is warranted. ] (]) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	: When I discovered that the coverage of topics about Ethiopia was unsatisfactory, my solution was to ... research the subject. It's been a long process, & I'm still not finished learning enough to write satisfactory articles (although I'm at the point now where I can seriously think about bringing some of them to FA status like the ]), but it's a useful side-effect of writing for Misplaced Pages: you learn something, even if they are things you cannot use in a Misplaced Pages article. (BTW, it appears that no one has written an article about the history of prisons, another subject worth writing about.) -- ] (]) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I endorse the comments above, Sgt Salt, and add my own encouragement. My major contributions to WP have been to subjects I have looked for and not found, rather than those in which I have an existing expertise or knowledge. It is extremely rewarding and satisfying to produce a well-researched article and, as Llywrch says, you learn all sorts of things along the way. How to go about it? If you feel there is enough information to warrant a separate page, then start with the basic outline, and plug in more information as you come across it. You ''might'' prefer to start the article in your own userspace first; then you can tinker away at your own speed, without feeling that the eyes of the world are on you. (See ].) It can be moved or copied to mainspace when you are ready. Of course, you can also start directly in mainspace. The main thing is to find good sources. Google searches are quite good, but the majority of stuff on the internet fails ], so hunt out journal articles, reference sites and so forth rather than forums and general sites. Visit your library: some of the best and most reliable resources are only available in hardcopy (academics and researchers tend to publish their studies; it's how they make their living). Check out ]: it is good practice to provide inline citations as you go; good articles require citations, and anything uncited can be challenged or removed later, and it is much harder to go back and prove something you knew you read somewhere... Above all, enjoy it! Forgive me if I've repeated basics you already know. If you need further advice or help, then most regular editors here are happy to help (you can certainly contact me on my talk page). You can also check out related ], which offer support, resources, peer reviews, assessment and so forth. ] seems to be inactive, but ] should be a good starting point. ] (]) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Thanks for the comments. I'm sure researching something I know next to nothing about would be interesting, but due to limited free time I have to restrict myself to researching points of detail. In fact the dilemma I was facing was that I checked WP to have a quick overview of violence in prisons, but didn't have time to delve into such a broad subject. So I wondered if there was a place to report that kind of blatant omission so that people knowledgeable on the subject or who simply happen to be interested in that topic could know it was missing. It's not so much about this article specifically (since I'm sure I'll find the time to create a stub in the next few weeks anyway) as it is about the other times I felt this way about an article but didn't know exactly where to report it. Of course, I'm aware reporting a problem does not fix it and someone has to do the fixing, but there are certainly benefits to having a list of most glaring defects in WP: prioritizing to fix the most obvious ones first, and having more contributions written by experts who already have a good overview of the subject and already know where to find the right sources. Actually, if there is such a list of "obvious fixes for people who know the subject" I'd be more than willing to help, and I'm certainly not the only one. --] (]) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

	== The West Wing ==

	Not directly relevant, but I'm fairly assured in my belief that this is the place where West Wing fans are most likely to surface. For the life of me I can't recognize who http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4261/vlcsnap3438612jd1.png is. He had the camera trained on him in ], so I'm assuming he's important enough for me not to forget - moreover, he looks familar, but just sounds like Babish in my head. ] (]) 10:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:It's the great ] himself, the creator of the series. ] (]) 12:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Richard II, royal power and divine right ==

	I consulted your Richard II of England page for some information on the exact reasons for his fall in 1399, but I'm not much wiser. Not only is the page breathless and ill-organized but my question was not fully answered. It also says that Richard adhered to the 'old' notion of the divine right of kings. Now I'm really confused. I always thought this was something assocaited with the development of absolutism rather than medieval monarchy? Am I wrong? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Richard seems to have got on well enough with his uncle ], and John’s son Henry Bolingbroke was his cousin and playmate, but Richard’s attempts to take charge of his kingdom were messy. Henry and his uncle ] were both members of the ], who forced the execution of several of Richard’s friends, including his beloved tutor Burley, and as Churchill says, “We must suppose that this treatment produced a marked impression on his mind.” Certainly in 1397, now secure in his authority, he finally began to take revenge on those who had bullied and domineered over him before he reached adulthood, particularly the Lords Appellant. Arundel was beheaded, Warwick was exiled and Gloucester was murdered by Royal agents while under arrest, and Richard used Parliament to rubber-stamp these acts. It all smacked of tyranny.

	:] had been a Lord Appellant too, so when Henry accused Mowbray of treason, Richard may have seen a certain irony in the accusation and its source. He refused to allow a duel of honour between the two and banished them both, apparently with the permission of John of Gaunt. Henry is said to have been outraged by his ten-year banishment, so perhaps he was genuinely loyal to Richard and trying to protect his interests. He certainly wasn’t after a year’s exile and then the loss of his father's estates, confiscated by Richard on John's death, of which ] says “And then, it seems, Richard lost his reason.” Going off to Ireland was another dreadful miscalculation – Henry was popular, had powerful support in the North, and was viewed by some as a doubly wronged man. He only had to turn up in Richard's absence, as he promptly did, to become a symbol of resistance against injustice and tyranny. Richard’s overthrow is an example of the power of PR, the fickleness of mobs, and the danger of taking your eye off the ball. -- <strong>]]</strong> 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	You are right to be confused by the reference to Richard’s alleged adherence to the 'old ideal' of the ] because-how can I put this without seeming unkind?-it's complete and utter tosh! Sadly, this is one of the weaknesses of Misplaced Pages, when seemingly plausible information is incorporated into articles without challenge. The Divine Right of Kings was a feature of the forms of royal absolutism that began to develop in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and is associated in England with the ], particularly ], who might be said to have given the notion intellectual substance in his '']''.

	The reasons for Richard's downfall are simple enough: he failed to understand the nation and its institutions; he failed to understand the significance of Parliament, and he failed to understand just how exactly an English monarch fitted within the general system of government. He was also lacking in any kind of political skill, making enemies of the most powerful men in the land at a time when he needed real friends, not passing favourites. If I can put it this way, Dogeee, an English Monarch of the high Middle Ages was a little like an early Roman Emperor. He was, in other words, ]-first among equals-, at the top of a feudal hierarchy, yes, but dependent, and crucially dependent, on the senior aristocracy and the lower gentry below that. With Richard, arbitrary and unpredictable, the pyramid simply collapsed. It was not that he was unfit for office, rather he simply lacked the suppleness of mind to detect the changing mood of the nation as expressed in Parliament, an institution which had grown in strength over the preceding century, especially during the reign of ], Richard's grandfather. Above all what he completely failed to realise was that Parliament expected to be considered as am essential partner in the nation's business, not just a forum for granting royal taxation.

	The immediate cause of Richard’s fall, of course, was that the confiscation Bolingbroke's inheritance had alarmed all of the senior nobility, who could see their own rights threatened by such arbitrary action. Richard was in every way the architect of his own downfall: a politically inept king and a bad manager of men. It had nothing to do with fickleness, with PR...or with mobs! ] (]) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Instruments and instrument players going extinct ==

	Is there any serious study on the lack of musicians working on the manufacture and playing of certain instruments? One can imagine how instruments cease to be played or created every now and then due to lack of interest on the art. Do you guys know anything about this? Any instruments that are nearly extinct you can name? — ] \| ] 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	The dinosaur bone flute is rarely made nowadays,sadly] 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	There is an instrument called the Zither that's always on the verge of dying out and then you get a revival. Various specific types of flutes have become extinct or are on the verge. A saw isn't really an instrument but there are very few people who can really play it well. ] and ] are not that common, but probably have enough people to keep them going. The nice thing is that unless all knowledge gets lost, instruments can be revived. Look at the ] that lay dormant for almost a century and then came back into use. --] (]) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	Based on reading the ] article, many types of lyre are distinct and are played only by small groups. The article also says that we cannot know exactly what the lyre of the classical heroic age was. I infer that many types of lyre have gone extinct and that others are currently on the edge of extinction. -] (]) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:My favorite obsolete-but-subject-to-revival instruments are the ], ], and ]. ] (]) 06:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::''Praetorius'' knew about playing the ]? ! ] (]) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	==Three life expectancy questions==
	*1. Why does Bhutan have a higher male expectancy than a female one? And how did it manage to remain with one ever since the country's initial existence?
	*2. If Andorra has the highest life expectancy, why aren't there/haven't there been many 100-year olds and 110-year olds there?
	*3. Does Georgia (the country) really have one of the highest rates for 100-year olds? It says so in a fact book that I have. ] (]) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Regarding 2): life expectancy is measured as an average, therefore 100 year olds are not required for a high life expectancy as long as you have a lot of 70-90 year olds. Regarding 3): says that the top three for centenarians are the US, Japan, and Canada. ] (]) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::*1 This https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html#People gives 65.5 for males and 66.4 for females. It states that the first modern census took place on 2005, so an erroneous estimate may have been published elsewhere.
	::*2 Average life expectancy and maximum life span are, whilst related, not identical. They certainly differ when the mean is calculated at birth as the mortality rate of infants (inter alia) reduces the average expectancy. If the infant mortality rate is low and few people die prior to their average expectancy this results in there being no or just a few centenarians. Of course, Andorra is quite tiny and the size of an average suburb.
	::*3 Georgia has a life expectancy at birth of 77 and an infant mortality rate of 17. The equivalents for Andorra are 84 and 4 (these demographics are superior to the stats from the UK / USA). As far as the Ukraine is concerned, I found some stuff published by the Institute of Gerontology of the Kiev Acadamy. As I can´t read it, I have no idea about the frequency of centenarians. --] (]) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::1. At birth, there are generally more boys than girls, and more boys than girls die very close to birth (neonatal mortality). If they are counted as born dead, then they are not included in the statistics for calculating life expectancy. In developing countries the rate of death of mothers at or after the birth (peripartum mortality) is higher than in developed countries, which could also reduce the life expectancy for females. ] (]) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::You should also consider whether the culture you are looking at favors male (or female?) children. There are some areas around the world where children are not counted as "alive" until several days, or weeks after birth. Infanticide would then not be counted/reported. Another thing to consider in agricultural societies is whether the farming in that country is a predominantly male or female occupation, or evenly divided amongst the sexes. There are cultures that send women straight back to work in the fields after giving birth. In addition to women dying in childbirth such things can skew statistics. ] (]) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Message left on ] ==

	Copying this here from ].

	looking for information on tom browning of brownington mo who the town was named after and who left the ground for the brownington baptist church to be build on he was my great grandfather thank you] (]) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	] (])

	If you live in the area and have some time you might try their microfilms '''http://tacnet.missouri.org/hcl/papers1.html''' You gave very little information to search for anyone by. E.g. key years might have helped. Have you tried contacting the church? jperkins@mobaptist.org ? There is a Brownington Baptist Church that was established in 1882. That it? Was Tom his full name or a shortened form? There are archives for Civil War information, but you are going to need more details to find anything there. ] (]) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	This question is politically themed so please leave it here. Who was ] refering to with:
	:''"Don't ask Jack to help you 'cause he'll turn the other ear. . ."''?
	] (]) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:According to http://www.4waysite.com/faq/faqsongs.htm, Graham Nash: "''The 'Jack' in my song Chicago is Jack Kennedy. Jack is a term used by many English people as a kind of generic word. Although Kennedy had been dead for years, his spirit lives on." In the context of the song, "Jack" could refer to those people for whom the Chicago issue is not "their problem"; the song infers , of course, that no matter how far removed from a problem "Jack" might think he/she is, it is always one's responsibility to stand up, be counted and do one's level best to resolve the issue : hence the refrain "We can change the world''" ? --] (]) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Thanks. ] (]) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::You are welcome. --] (]) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Birds In Reference To Eyeglasses ==

	What Bird, whether by name or type of species, relate to eyeglasses in any way?––ROS <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:The quite unspectacular ], aka the ]. --] (]) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Maybe too obvious and neither a name nor type of species, but some ] look as though they're wearing a pair of glasses. :-) I had a bit more luck with a quick search in German where there are lots of animals that have a prefix "Brillen-" (spectacle) -ente (duck), -pinguin (penguin), -taube (dove), -pelikan (pelican). It's likely there are more. Non of those has anything to do with glasses in English. They also have a bear, a snake, a sheep and a sort of reptile, to name just some I've heard of. I guess "spectacle" just doesn't flow well and "eyeglasses" is too long as a compound and could lead to misunderstandings. --] (]) 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::] has a monocle...--]\|] 08:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::] (''Sylvia conspicillata'') and ] (''Pulsatrix perspicillata''). There's a Spectacled Tern too, but I think it's officially a Grey-Backed Tern these days. -- <strong>]]</strong> 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::::And how about the Spectacled Eider ?--] (]) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Examples of non-Russian high profile people in Soviet Union ==

	Hello,

	in the west, one often thinks of the Soviet Union as a Greater Russia, so it usually comes as a surprise that important people like ] and ]were no ethnic Russians. I was wondering : what other examples are there? (They don't have to be politicians, nation-wide known military commanders, scientists,... are welcome too)
	Thanks,
	] (]) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Just now I'm able to give you ] and ], who I happen to know were Ukranian. Some digging around in our soviet biography articles (the two linked ones give you some good categories) will find you more. ] (] ]) 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Khrushchev was ethnic Russian, but lived a lot of his early life in Ukraine, and was often identified as being Ukrainian, although he identified as Russian. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::] came from a Jewish family in the Ukraine, which makes it kind of ironic that under his watch, the Red Army dropped its internationalist pretenses and began to propagandize for the mighty Great Russian people to defend the Motherland. -- ] (]) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::I'm not aware of any such development while Trotsky was Commissar for Defence, Mwalcoff, a position he lost, of course, in early 1925. It would hardly have been advisable considering that one of his best formations was made up of ]! ] (]) 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::During the ] of 1919-20, according to ], I believe. -- ] (]) 02:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Here it is:
	:::::::Trotsky at once saw the propaganda victory to be won by getting ] to join the Reds. The next day he announced the general's appointment as the Chairman of a Special Conference in command of the Western Front. Printed in ''Pravda'' on 7 May , the announcement was typical of the increasingly xenophobic tone of the Bolsheviks' rhetoric. It called on all patriots to join the army and 'defend the Fatherland' from the 'Polish invaders' who were 'trying to tear from us lands that have always belonged to the Russians'. Trotsky claimed that the Poles were driven by 'hatred of Russia and the Russians'. The Red Army journal, ''Voennoe delo'', published a xenophobic article (for which it was later suspended) contrasting the 'innate Jesuitry of the Polacks' with the 'honourable and open spirit of the Great Russian race'. ] characterized the whole of the civil war as a 'national struggle of liberation against foreign invasion'. The Reds, he said, were 'defending Mother Russia' against the efforts of the Whites and the Allies to 'make it a colony' of the West. 'Soviet Russia', he concluded on a note of warning to the newly independent states, aimed to 'reunite all the Russian lands and defend Russia from colonial exploitation.' It was back to the old imperialism. (''A People's Tragedy'', p. 699)
	::::::Incidentally, Karl Radek, like Trotsky, came from a Jewish Ukrainian family. The fiercest nationalists are always those with an adopted national identity. -- ] (]) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::Thank you, Mwalcoff; I should have known it would have been in ''that'' war that the Old Russian Adam would have made his reappearance! However, I would dispute that the use of this kind of traditional imagery proved that either Radek or Trotsky had somehow become Russian chauvinists. Both men were firmly international in outlook, as they were to demonstrate time and again. But they were both talented propagandists; and such people always know how to make the best use of the things that move people most. The war with Poland excited Russian national sentiment more than all the battles of the Civil War, fully demonstrated by the open support of Brusilov, a national hero, for the regime. It would have made perfect sense to capitalise upon this general mood as part of a propaganda battle. ] (]) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	Gosh, Evilbu, I could compile a list of ''dozens'' of names, but I think I would find the task altogether too tiresome. So, let me confine myself simply to the politicians. Taking a strict definition of ethnicity, as supposed to the location of an individual's birth, a great many of the early Bolshevik leadership were Jewish, from ] to ]. I think you will find all of the names in the article on ]. ], founder and first commander of the ], the forerunner of all of the Soviet secret police forces, was Polish, and ], the first Commissar for Education, was Ukrainian. ], a senor member of Stalin's coterie, was Armenian, and ], another of his close associates, was a fellow Georgian. That's enough, I think, to give you a taste. But it goes on, Evilbu; it goes on! ] (]) 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	Thanks for all the answers. I see Poles, Ukrainians, Armenians and Georgians...but what about the Central Asians?] (]) 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Few, I imagine you will ever have heard of. People like ], from Kazakhstan, tended to have a purely local significance. ] (]) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Master of Hestviken FAMILY TREE ==

	Although Misplaced Pages has a list of characters for ''The Master of Hestviken'' by Sigrid Undset ], I'm trying to find a FAMILY TREE similar to the one for the Potter family of the Harry Potter books ]. Is anyone aware of such a family tree or interested in adding one to Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Ubaldofsubiaco
	:You can't count on someone else wanting to do this work. You could compile it yourself but other editors may not think it is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Suggest it on the talk page for ]. ] (]) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== William Blake illustrations for "Paradise Lost" ==

	I'm soon self-publishing a book about the nature of duelism in Western Theology. On your site, the photographic reproductions of Blake's illustrations for Milton's PARADISE LOST are said to be "in the Public Domain whose copyright has expired." I'm wondering if I'm able to use a couple of these illustrations lawfully in my book, without payment of royalty?

	--Goranlut <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	If something is in the public domain, that means that it can be freely used without payment of royalty, because it is public property. Since the author has been dead for about 180 years, its copyright has expired. ''''']]''''' <small>]</small> 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Though in some jurisdictions the photographs themselves may be copyrighted. That's not a risk in the United States, if that's where you're publishing. (This comment is not to be construed as legal advice) ] 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Reporter's Day ==

	Other then China, which countries have an nationally designated Reporter's day? ] (]) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Is this a day on which they lock up reporters? , countries with similar attitudes to China are Turkmenistan, Cuba, Burma and North Korea. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 07:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Logic of Coalitions ==

	Why is it that so many European countries have coalitions instead of single parties? If they were led all by one person, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be merged into one party, instead of having many confusing names? ] (]) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	:The answer to your first question lies in the use of various forms of ], which rarely, if ever, allow a single party to emerge dominant. Political Parties will come together over matters of mutual interest, though a considerable amount of horse trading is usually involved before a common programme agreed and a government formed.

	:As far as your second question is concerned, well, there are people, for example, who will define themselves as Liberals and people who will define themselves as Socialists, but there is no reason to suppose that, while they might be prepared to work together, they would readily agree to accept the full incorporation in one party or the other. Differences in ideology and organisation make this impossible, to say nothing of the electoral constituencies they each appeal to. In Germany the liberal ] have been elastic enough to enter into government with the left-wing ], at one point in their post-war career, and the right-wing ] at another. ] (]) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I think FromFoams referred to electoral coalitions instead of governing coalitions, such as the ], ] or ]. I think three things are important in understanding why these coalitions form: first, Eastern European party systems are still not fully developed and stablized (and it is not sure whether they ever will): splits often occur, new parties are formed, old parties die. Because of the dynamic nature of the party system allegiances often change. So while it may be logical for a party to team up with one party in one election, it may be logical for it to team up with another party in the next election, because of the instability. Second, the electoral system although proportional in nature often there are quite high thresholds, this forces parties to team up, in order to gain seats. Finally, it is important that what is rational or logical from a design perspective, is not necessarily what happens historically. ] can be important factor in explaining why these coalitions exists. Eventhough parties may form a coalitions they may not want to give up their nominal independence, their own organization, ideology and identity.] (]) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	= April 28 =

	== Fear of reprisal ==

	If I were a member of the current North Vietnamese government would I have anything to fear from John McCain being elected President of the United States? <small> ] (]) 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:"North Vietnam" no longer exists. It's now part of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which includes the entire country. And the U.S. long ago recognized and made peace with the country. So no, I don't think so. -- ] (]) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Be afraid. Be very afraid. ] (]) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::If you were a member of the Vietnamese government, you very well could worry about McCain bringing attention to in your country. However, as President, McCain will have far less power to do anything substantial than he currently has as a member of the Senate. -- ]] 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::I don't think it's accurate to say he "will have far less power" as president than as a senator. Presidents generally get wide latitude in setting foreign policy and get to appoint the secretary of state and ambassadors, negotiating treaties, etc. A senator is merely one vote out of a hundred that gets to ratify appointments and treaties. A senator on the foreign relations committee would certainly have more influence than other senators over foreign policy, but still much less than the president. (McCain isn't on that committee.) That said, the ] has wide support and I doubt McCain would change it much as president. A search of shows the only mentions of Vietnam are in relation to his service in the Vietnam War and his time as a POW. No mention of contemporary Vietnam. --] \| ] 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:McCain was, in fact, among the first Congressional proponents of normalizing US relations with Vietnam. ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== playing in the street ==
	::''Please note: The responses had been re-ordered by the questioner, and, as a consequence, the thread became confusing. I have put the comments back in chronological order, and changed the indenting as was appropriate.'' '''I have changed no text within any comment'''. ] (]) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	Our town has a law (misdemeanor) against blocking traffic by one or more persons in the street which is the basis for a code enforcement (civil) law that prohibits basketball nets being set up on the curb or in the street. Youth refuse to comply with this law and setup the nets and play in the street anyway. Code enforcement and the police will enforce the law but only under a large amount of pressure. The consequence is not as significant for motor vehicles as it is for bicyclists who the players absolutely refuse to grant the right-of-way, especially if they are burdened with groceries, etc. What steps can a bicyclist use to deal with this effectively on a daily basis if an alternate route is unavailable? (BTW, this is a perfect example how one culture is totally ignorant of the many cases and long history behind the need to have and maintain right-a-ways. PS. I'm not asking for legal advice either although I am looking for a solution that is legal. I already know that I can spend 130 weeks worth of groceries on an attorney to find out where each player lives and file a law suit.) <small> ] (]) 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:I will ignore the aside about what "one culture" does or doesn't understand, and comment only on the basic issue. If a polite "Beep, beep; Excuse me; I'm coming through" doesn't work, then I suggest (as there are likely more of them than you) you get off your bike and walk it through the game, with the same degree of care and courtesy as you would if you were not on a bike. You could also stop to talk to the youths at some time other than when you are trying to pass through an active game, explaining your difficulty, but I would not recommend you bring to that talk either attitude or a legalistic approach. ] (]) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Have you considered filing a ] with your city/municipal or county government. It seems there is a need for basketball courts/ community space for juveniles in your neighborhood. If you get all sides of this issue together (cyclists, players, parents, drivers) you might even get a signature list going. Some local governments have open sessions where "the public" can ask questions and request actions. You may even find it on your TV. Your local/district/county representative will also be more receptive to the needs of his/her constituents around election time. Also consider hooking up with bigger groups like the local cycling association, scouts, neighborhood association, urban community projects etc., etc. The more the merrier. If you can find a pot among all the public funds that would pay for the costs that would be a cherry. (There's a lot of money out there that is set aside and doesn't get spent in the right place or on the intended purpose because no one asks for it). Win-lose strategies (right of way) only work if you have the upper hand, otherwise ] (you get your space, I get mine) have more of a chance of getting you somewhere. Hope this helps.--] (]) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::Are you seriously suggesting that someone in this "one culture" should take personal responsibility and simply walk safely - or worse, drop the passive-aggressive attitude and discuss the problem directly with those who are part of the problem? That isn't how they do it on TV. You are supposed to complain to everyone (except those who can do something about the problem) and eventually explode with hostility one day and drive an SUV through the game at high speed. At least that is how I figure this "one culture" works. -- ]] 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::You should not ignore the mention of "one culture" since it is the crux of the problem. What should not be ignored either is your same lack of knowledge and comprehension regarding the need and purpose for designating right of ways. I know of a case where day after day a motorist's right to pass was denied until one day his wife's urgent phone call turned his need to pass into an emergency. Instead of using the right of way which had been provided by the City, namely the street, he was forced to use the yard of the property owner where the net had been placed; destroying in the process, a fence, a hedge, a lawn, and a tree while on the return trip to the hospital with his wife lying in the back seat moaning and his horn blowing nailed a number of defiant players. He was of course arrested at the hospital and eventually released but all this just because the members of a more privative culture decided they owned the street and the right of way was theirs. That's what you can expect when members of a culture with more primitive rules rejects the rules of a more sophisticated culture that have been developed over time from many relevant cases representing both sides of the argument. <small> ] (]) 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:::::Actually I have tried that on several occasions at more than one location and invariably you become treated as an intruder or as an invader of the more primitive culture's space. <small> ] (]) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	::::::Notwithstanding the agonizingly careful language, this is beginning to have the smell of a rant about it. ] (]) 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::Only in response to your comment and defense of the awareness of how the failure to acknowledge the difference in rules followed by one culture versus another actually plays out. It may very well seem like a rant to someone unwilling to comply with the rules of the more sophisticated culture when it is in reality only a statement that a conflict in the rules exists and the more sophisticated rules are the law of the land, which are being defied and not followed. <small> ] (]) 04:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	::::::::Thanks for your suggestion. I just completed as a matter of fact a petition for sidewalks on a street in a different part of the neighborhood. I have also provided a copy of the law to the property owners who leave the nets out on the streets. They know what the law is but remain defiant and demand to have it their way. They do have other places they can play such as in their driveways instead of on the street which is why we suspect that their true motive for playing in traffic is so they can agitate drivers and have a more interesting game. <small> ] (]) 10:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) </small>

	:::::::::It couldn't possibly be that the street offers them ''more room'' to play their game, could it? That said, please drop the ] about "more primitive" cultures. It's very difficult to see you as the grieved party when using such inflammatory rhetoric. -- ] (]) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	(Outdent) My advice would be to sit them down and have a talk with them, being careful to explain to them why they are so primitive and you are so sophisticated. I think the problem will probably resolve itself at that point. ] (]) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:The only things we know for certain are that the basketball players are young and in a different culture to you. So I'm going to assume ] but which of ] is it? I see there's nothing on that list dealing with street-basketball playing youth so perhaps you can add to it?
	:71.236 mentioned the parents, did you try them?
	:] (]) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:How about a little perspective? Is it really that inconvenient to ride around the children? Is this a residential neighborhood? Give the kids a break. I'm sure you are very by the book, but I've noticed many bicyclists who couldn't care less for the rules, riding on the wrong side of the street, going the wrong way on a one-way street, acting as if stop signs and red lights don't apply to them. All of this leads to little respect toward bicyclists. --] (]) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Older art (war based) ==

	Okay this is the only place i can think of that could answer this, i hope i am not placing this in the wrong section! :)

	I am looking for some images of some old art, and unfortunately i dont know where it is from or what it is called, consequentially, i cant really search so well for it can i?!

	The art depicts (i think) characters at war, or characters in general in such a way as it tells a story. It is sort of cave painting style in this manner because it tells something with pictures, but it definately seems to be way past that era, possibly done on paper or some form of fabric.

	The art commonly has text above in a thick sort of calligraphy. The language i dont know, but it could be an old form of english, whereas the letter V is standing for a modern U or such. Im not certain about that though.

	It is POSSIBLE that the type of text or the language in which it is written could be somewhat common in images of a catholic origin. I'm not sure.....

	I have described what i am looking for to the best of my ability. I will add more if i think of it, but does anyone have an idea what i may be speaking of?

	] (]) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:137, I'm not absolutely sure what it is that you are looking for, but it occurs to me that the ] depicts a story of politics and war in very much in the manner you describe. ] (]) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	This is pretty much exactly it! Is there a name given to depictions LIKE this one, so that i may find more of the same style? At least i know its language and location now and one instance of it! THANKS! ] (]) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I cannot say if there is a specific name given to this art form, but for another in very much the same style there is the ]. ] (]) 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


	Intereesting range of dates, the events are 1066 and 1944... but both about normandy.... HM! Thank you very much Clio! :) ] (]) 01:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::There are other embroideries of this kind: for example the ] and the Plymouth tapestry and the ]. ] (]) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Is Islam sometimes considered an Eastern religion? ==

	Is Islam sometimes considered an Eastern religion? ] has more followers in the Eastern countries like ], ], and ].
	It look like an Eastern religion to me because of followers in the Eastern world and It's Middle Eastern culture. ] ] 04:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:If by "eastern religion" you mean the ones that are lumped together like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc, then no, not at all. Islam is lumped together in another group with Christianity and Judaism, the "Abrahamic religions". ] (]) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:No. Christianity is popular in Australia, which is very far east. That doesn't make it an eastern religion. ] (]) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Why do some people in the Middle East don't know Western culture? ==

	I was chatting online with a ] ] on Friday night. The missionary is in ]. I told him, about the leis and other Western cultures. He doesn't know that because ] does not include ]. ] ] 04:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:What are the leis? And why is this surprising? Most westerners don't know anything about Islam. ] (]) 08:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::...or ], or ]. Slightly more confusing: Saudia Arabia has Islam as a state religion and 100% of the population are Muslims. What would be the task of a missionary in this country? --] (]) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I think most westerners don't know much about ], either, despite its being a product of their own culture. ] 10:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	Are you talking about ]? These aren't really a part of Western culture, though most Westerners know about it, if only through '']''. --] \| ] 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Most Westerners have only a passing knowledge of the Brady Bunch. I, personally was aware of the floral reefs, but didn't know they were known as leis - however, I doubt the OP was refering to those. ] (]) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== No More Heroes Any More ==

	In criticising Thomas Carlyle's great man theory of history Herbert Spencer said that an individual is the creation of a series of complex influences and long before he can remake his society, his society must make him. Does this mean that the actions of any given historical figure are only of passing relevance, and that things would have happened in much the same way, even if he had never existed? ] (]) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I suppose what he was saying was that to attribute the great changes throughout history to individuals is to ignore the processes that shaped those individuals. It could be interpreted as meaning that if it wasn't for Napolean, someone else would have have done what he did, or it could be interpreted as saying that Napolean is only important insofar as he is a figurehead for the numerous social and political movements that made him into the Napolean we know and lead to the actions that made him famous. I'm just speculating here, I have only a passing knowledge of the ].--] (]) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Spencer's view is similar to Marx's: "Man makes his own history but not in the conditions of his own choosing"; "the educator must himself be educated". (Sexist language the fault of the translator!) The "great man" view was very prevalent in the 19th century, when schools saw it as their role to hold up models to be emulated, hence the need for writers to critique it. I think these critiques can be taken in a strong sense or a weak one. In a strong sense, people's actions hardly matter at all, and social forces account for everything. But if we take them in a weaker sense, we must take into account that the "great" person's character was formed by social influences, but once that character is formed, the person's actions can have a decisive effect at certain historical junctures. ] (]) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::And if you want a novel written with no other purpose in mind than to critique the "great man" view of history, pick up ]. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	] is, of course, reacting to ]'s statement to the effect that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men" by pushing the pendulum in the other direction. The reaction is understandable, and the corrective necessary. There are few modern historians who take Carlyle's inflated accounts of Robespierre or Napoleon seriously, just as few have any patience with his over-ripe and flowery prose.

	The unfortunate thing is that pendulum has remained for too long at the other extreme, held in position by those who followed in the steps of ], ] and the like. The altogether tiresome 'history from below school' has become just that-tiresome! In my experience academics are, once again, beginning to pay close attention to the actions and decisions taken by key players at key moments in time. What, for instance, if ], had been killed at the ], would the history of the Roman Empire have proceeded along the same lines; would we now, perhaps, be investigating Christianity as just another vanished cult along with ]? What shape would the modern world have if Mohammed-or Lenin-had never been born? Is it possible to imagine that the history of Europe would have taken the same course in the middle of the last century if Adolf Hitler had never emerged from the doss-houses of Vienna, or if Soso Dzhugashvili had become an Orthodox priest?

	Count Fosco, you might wish to have a look at ]'s ''Fateful Choices'', which touches on some of these themes. And I can assure you that it is far, far easier to get students interested in the sex-life of Henry VIII, or Charles II, than it is in crop rotation and trade patterns! Make room always for the big ideas...and for the great people. ] (]) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Tibet ==

	please what is long source of present difficulty with china and tibet? ] (]) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Wow that's a difficult question. Have a look at ]. To simplify, Tibet has (sort of) always been a part of China. To quote the article: "''no nation has ever recognized Tibet as independent''". Tibet is obviously a ] region, and as China is a ] state it is committed to atheism. So there's a bit of conflict there. When the ] formed in 1912, the ] declared Tibetan seperation from the new state, which was treated as ] independence until 1950. In the late 1940s, as the Communist Party gained power in China, there was immense internal pressure to reclaim Tibet as a part of China, resulting in an ]. The Chinese communists saw Tibet as a backward region that was stuck with a heirarchical feudal system and which refused to modernise. Much of the conflict comes from the two opposing political systems. Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama under the teachings of ], while China is ruled by (at present) ] under the teachings of communism and ]. China sees itself as having a claim on Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China, while many Tibetans want at least greater autonomy, if not independence. The ] does not make claims that Tibet should be independent, but does want greater autonomy and a respect for Tibetan traditions and culture. These cultures and traditions are often antithetical to the ] tenets of government, especially the elevation of the Dalai Lama to near-godly status. Recently, due to the emigration of Tibetans and the resulting Western trend for ] mysticism, often combining elements of Buddhism, Tibet has become an issue in Western countries, which has increased scrutiny on Chinese activites there. As China is a known abuser of human rights, the cause of Tibet is championed around the world, to the dissatisfaction of many Chinese nationals and expatriates who take the view that Tibet is indeed a part of mainland China. Much of the problem goes back into the ] when China was controlled by the ], and then later when China was unifed under the ]. Tibet has been a part of China for a long time, but it has generally been left alone by the various governments that have ruled it, as it has little strategic value and few natural resources. The current incarnation of the Chinese government, however, dislike the idea of a region operating under medieval religious traditions and as such have attepted to reintegrate Tibet into mainland China. This has exacerbated the problems in the region, helping no-one and creating the modern situation. I hope that helps. --] (]) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::Next time I see a contribution here appended with the formulae 'I hope that helps', which seems to appear ''ad nauseam'', I may very well scream out loud! Or, better still, I shall conclude my own with 'I really do not care if this helps or not, but I have spoken! ] (]) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Wow! It would be pretty neat if you could similarly summarise all the other current world events that we should know about! ----] ''']''' 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:''Tibet has (sort of) always been a part of China.'' And Hungary and Serbia have (sort of) always been a part of Turkey; Hawaii has (sort of) always been part of the United States; Sinkiang has (sort of) always been part of China; Afghanistan has (sort of) always been part of Greece... --] (]) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

	::I suppose that's a fair point, although none of those situations (apart from Xinjiang) could claim equivalance with that in Tibet. I was attempting to summarise the complexities of the issue for the OP. I admitted that I was simplifying vastly, but Tibet '''has''' been a part of China for hundreds of years and continues to be so today. The history of the formation of the various Asian states is long and complex, and I was simply trying to get across the point that Tibet has been a part of China for as long as the current incarnation of China has existed. The current problems in Tibet don't really go back further than that, so I saw no need to go into the politics of over a millenium ago. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive answer, but I felt that I covered the overwhelming majority of the issues, gave links to some informative articles and tried to not take sides on the issue. If you disagree with what I wrote, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but the fact that Tibet has (sort of) been a part of China since its unification is a major factor in the troubles there today. The Tibetans aren't happy with being a part of China and China is not willing to relinquish a territory that has been a part of it for hundreds of years. As I admitted, this is an oversimplifaction, but it illustrates the facts well and the articles I linked to should have more thorough explantions. --] (]) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	Syrekor, China and Tibet existed together for many centuries in what might be thought of as a symbiotic partnership, where each derived positive benefits from the other. Tibet is a poor country with few natural resources. What was important, it might be said, was its spiritual power, not its material wealth. It was this that the Tibetans used in their exchanges with their more powerful neighbour to the east; passing on something of their spiritual knowledge-and magic-in return for protection and other forms of support. It was a mutually-beneficial relationship that went back to the time of the Mongols.

	In 1244 the Mongols, who had conquered much of China, reached an agreement with the powerful Buddhist religious order of Tibet. In return for access to some of the more esoteric branches of Tibetan knowledge, the Mongols appointed the monks to rule the area on their behalf. It was the beginnings of the patron/priest relationship. Even ]'s chief spiritual advisor was a Tibetan Buddhist, famed for his alleged magical powers. The relationship between the Mongols and the Tibetans deepened over time. It was ], a later Mongol ruler, who is though to have bestowed the title of ] on the Tibetan holy man who converted his people to Buddhism. The fifth Dalai Lama was even to call on Mongol troops to defeat his internal enemies. And thus the partnership was established, one of equals. And for as long as the rulers of China coveted Tibet's spiritual wealth, then it remained for all practical purposes as an independent nation. From the Mongols to the Manchus, Lhasa was the spiritual centre of the Chinese world.

	But Tibet's unique spiritual heritage, the tradition of Lamaism itself, was accompanied by growing political weakness. The whole structure, the balance between spiritual wealth and earthly power, was threatened as external forces came into play in the nineteenth century, when Britain and Russia began to struggle for influence in Central Asia in the so-called ]. When the ] in 1903, forcing the then Dalai Lama to take refuge in China two things became clear: Tibet was incapable of defending itself and its weakness was a threat to the security of the Chinese state. It was from this point that the ancient symbiosis began to degenerate. The Chinese managed to re-impose their control of the area but were driven out by the Tibetans themselves after the onset of the ].

	When the Communists came to power in 1949, ending decades of anarchy and civil war, the old spiritual bond between Tibet and China was gone forever. All that remained was a security threat. ], fearful that Tibet would fall under the control of the western powers during the Cold War, invaded and occupied the country in the early 1950s. The Chinese arrived no longer as protectors but as nationalists, determined to continue with the creation of an integrated and unified state. It was against this background that Tibetan cultural identity was seen not as an asset but as a threat. The Mountain Kingdom of the Spirit was simply no longer needed. ] (]) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Someone I know wrote an article for his university's student newspaper () that explains some of the background, although he focuses mainly on the events around the Qing dynasty. ]<small>(])</small> 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Wittgenstein at Cambridge ==

	I believe that when Wittgenstein taught at Cambridge he had a ferocious reputation. Seemingly only Alan Turing ever had the courage to contradict him. Are there any details on his teaching method, his approach to students and the nature of his dispute with Turing? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:"Back in Cambridge in 1939, (Turing) attended lectures by Ludwig Wittgenstein about the foundations of mathematics. The two argued and disagreed vehemently, with Turing defending formalism and Wittgenstein arguing that mathematics is overvalued and does not discover any absolute truths." ''Jenseits aller Gewissheit - Die Begegnung zwischen Alan Turing und Ludwig Wittgenstein, ISBN 3-85218-203-4'' ] (]) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The book to hunt for is Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge, 1939
	:Ludwig Wittgenstein, ed Cora Diamond, which has been assembled from notes taken by R. G. Bosanquet, Norman Malcolm, Rush Rhees, and Yorick Smythies. ] (]) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	There are still stories circulating in Cambridge about Wittgenstein's time. There was a bizarre, almost Monty-Python like quality to his lectures. His students were obliged to bring along deck-chairs, on which they all sat in absolute silence while the professor remained immersed in thought. Every so often this silence would be punctuated as Wittgenstein, in the midst of deep labours, would deliver some idea! He would on occasions turn on one of his students and start a rigorous intellectual interrogation, a process that has been likened to being under examination by the Spanish Inquisition.

	He had the capacity, by sheer strength of his intellect, and his relentlessness in pursuit of a point, to reduce his audience to a state of terror. You are right, Jet, that the only person with sufficient courage to stand up to him was ]. Wittgenstein maintained in one of his lectures that a system-such as logic or mathematics-could remain valid even if it contained a contradiction. Turing rejected this, saying there was no pint in building a bridge with mathematics that contained a hidden contradiction, otherwise the structure might collapse. Wittgenstein responded by saying that such empirical considerations had no place in logic, but Turing persisted. How I would love to have been present! ] (]) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Can I vote anywhere? Does my opinion mean anything? ==

	As a British student (23), studying in the Netherlands, the only tax that I pay being on goods that I buy and my (paltry) income in the Netherlands, do I have any right to vote in any political elections or even write to any MPs in either country?
	:You can vote in European parliament elections in the Netherlands (and in the UK, as far as I can see). It's possible you can also vote in other elections there (EU citizens can vote in UK local elections, for example); I don't know. You can also vote in national (but not local) British elections: see . ] 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	::You need to have lived in the Netherlands for five years in order to eligible to vote in the municipal elections. Without a Dutch passport you can't vote in the general election. You can vote for either the Dutch or UK European Parliament candidates. You are free to write or sign petitions to Dutch MPs or to attend meetings. You can even become a member of one of the political parties and have influence on the selection of candidates and the writing of the election manifesto. But you can't vote in general elections. ] (]) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Doesn't that five-year requirement conflict with EU treaties? As far as I know EU citizens have a general right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the member state they reside in. ] (]) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Algebraist's link doesn't work, for me at least, but to the website of the British consulate in the Hague where you can read about how to register to vote in British elections in the Netherlands. — ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== De Beauvoir and Genet ==

	Sartre was fascinated by Jean Genet, even writing a book about him. Do we know if Simone de Beauvoir had the same high estimation of the thief/homosexual/poet/author.] (]) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:] and ] met ] in 1944, in the last months of the occupation of France, and both became his friends at a time when the ] and the Resistance of the Left were embracing not just ] but also all kinds of criminalty to fight the Germans. A few years later, in 1948, Genet was facing a life sentence for ordinary crime, and Beauvoir joined Sartre, ], ], ] and others in their successful efforts to get him a pardon from ], the French President. But her admiration didn't go to such extremes as Sartre's. Genet was so horrified by Sartre's book about him, by the way, that he tried to burn it. Oddly enough, Genet died the day after Beauvoir - ] linked the two and said "The end of an era". ] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I would go a little further than Xn4: de Beauvoir developed a pronounced dislike for Genet. She described him as the "bitchy queen, fairy, gossip" who was also the "thief, juvenile delinquent, bastard and protégé of Sartre." She was particularly uncomfortable when he insisted on giving lurid descriptions of his homosexual encounters and when he told of violent robberies, She says that when she worked her way through the proofs of ''Saint Genet'' she felt both 'repulsion and violation.' ] (]) 01:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I can never catch you out, Clio, can I?] (]) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That's why she's a Muse. ] (]) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== A play about amputees in garbage cans ==

	I've been trying to remember the title and author of an Absurdist play that I'm sure I've heard of, in which the only characters are two homeless men with no limbs sitting in garbage cans. I thought it might be by Samuel Beckett, but apparently not, or if so I can't find it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Could be Beckett's '']'', there's a man and a woman in garbage cans, but they're not the only characters in the play and they do have limbs (well, arms at least). --] ]] 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I am reaonably sure that you are referring to ]´s "]". Negg and Nell, the two characters in the rubbish bins, are without legs and the protagonist, Hamm, is paralyzed in a wheelchair. The only mobile character is Clov, a sort of reversed Godot. --] (]) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Tailoring question about shirts ==

	There is a thing on the back of shirts sometimes, usually western shirts, or outdoors-style where there is what I would only describe as an extra flap of material. It covers the upper back, but stops usually about 40-50% down the back in a hemmed, but open flap. This piece of material is on top of material that would be on a normal shirt I think. I'm looking for what it's called, searching is hard since I can't get many good terms... :) - ''']''' 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	:This doesn't really answer your specifics, but there's a western style '''yoke''', for shirts, found on jeans as well. The one you mean is on the Driza-Bone western duster as a weather run-off and on the shirt, it could be a variation of the yoke or a double of it. ] (]) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::It is an open-style yoke or vented back (probably because most guys think a yoke is a driving wheel for an airplane), commonly found on outdoor clothing. It usually covers a mesh material for ventilation. --<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::: is a picture under the name of a vented back. ] (]) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::Ahh, thanks! It has mesh underneath? Crazy. :) - ''']''' 12:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::::Yes- they are quite comfortable in the summer. They will probably become more popular with global warming. :) --<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	:According to ''What's What'', edited by Reginald Bragonier, Jr and David Fisher (Ballantine Books, 1981), on page 196, the piece at the back of a trench coat which is (OR in this opinion) the likely precursor to the design of the shirt, is called a "storm shield" at the back and a "storm patch" where it appears at the front. The epaulet (the tab across the top of the shoulder, usually with a botton at the outside end) covers the seam at the top of the shoulder where "storm guard" and "storm patch" meet) thus (OR again) keeping the rain from dripping through the seam. I believe the shirt style to have been just a copy of the coat. And it is a wicked bit to iron in a shirt! ] (]) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			: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.
	==Search for two phrases==
			: 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).
	I'm thinking of two different phrases, and blanking on what they are... The first means something along the lines of "illusion of reality" and refers to, well, the illusion of reality in fiction: plays, novels, films, etc. One could break this phrase by, say, breaking the fourth wall, by showing that it's not real after all, but "fourth wall" isn't the phrase I'm looking for. I feel like this is an obvious phrase that I just can't place.
			: says that Goldman's first cart was introduced to Humpty Dumty in 1937.
			:Make of that what you will. ] (]) 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 ] 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)
	The other one I'm less sure about, an example of it would be the point at which robots become conscious or as conscious as humans and can think. I guess this is mostly a science fiction phrase, but I have a feeling it's not just. Another example might be animals becoming fully conscious (ie thinking for themselves, having non-basic "intelligence"), or a theory that universes themselves could become conscious. Any ideas? --] \| ] 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII ==
	:], ] --] (] / ]) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (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)
	::A different answer for the first one is "verisimilitude". On the second, I've read a lot of SF and I can't think of an expression that refers specifically to the point at which a being becomes conscious or intelligent; I don't think the above answer hits it. Words like "awakening" are sometimes used. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, April 28, 2008.
			: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 =
	::: ] what you were looking for? The other one may be ] or ]. ] or ] are also good candidates. An extension of ] would be your last thought. Have a look through the ]. --] (]) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

			== The USA adding a new state ==
	::::For the first, maybe immersion? ] (]) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (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)
	:::::Some science fiction uses the term ]ed when something like an animal or other non-sentient becomes intelligent due to external forces. - ''']''' 12:39, 29 April 2008 (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)
	::::::Indeed. ] made singularity a popular term, while uplifted was first used by ]. --<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 14:07, 29 April 2008 (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 =
	:::::::As I recall, the term used by ] in ] is "ascended".] (]) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~ShareAlike~~ ~~copyright~~ question. ==		== 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 have a question about the ShareAlike license: say that there is a song that's been licensed under CC-BY-SA, and I want to use that song in my movie. Will my entire movie have to be ShareAlike-licensed?

			:], they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the ]. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later
	I'm fairly certain that the answer is no: no reasonable person could think that a 90 minute movie is a "derivative work" of a 45-second clip of a song contained within it. I mean, that's silly. It's obviously a different thing if I'm making a music video or something, but the fact is that if I just use it on my soundtrack, I'm not making a derivative. I'm just distributing it along with my movie.
			:*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 ==
	That's certainly how Misplaced Pages works, isn't it? I mean, we're free to include ShareAlike images in articles, without resorting to fair use, but the articles aren't necessarily licensed under ShareAlike (which of course they can't be, since that would be a violation of the GFDL, and the previous editors copyright). Isn't this the same situation as with my movie? --] 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	:Sorry, if you want to use the 45 seconds, you have to license your entire thing CC-BY-SA. (Copyleft is not really about total freedom; it's about an alternative regime of copyright protections that works differently.) That's the whole point of SA -- to keep people from using the work in things that are licensed otherwise. And yes, any new work you make using a copyrighted work is considered a derivative work. It doesn't matter how brief or how tiny it is in the context of the movie, unless it falls under ] (which requires taking other things into consideration as well). But yes, your movie would be considered a derivative work if you wanted to use copyrighted (even if it is "copyleft") material in it, by definition. All "derivative work" means in this (legal) context is that it is a work based on or derived from previously existing works.
	:Misplaced Pages falls under the CC category of "Collections" (), which means that it is a work made up of individually licensed works, easily distinguishable from one another (the text is GFDL, but the images are all differently licensed and are easily labeled as such. In general a movie wouldn't fall under this category (an exception would be a movie that was nothing but a bunch of discrete film clips in a row, each labeled with their copyright status and not overlapping with one another); your described use would not fall under this category. --] (]) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			: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;
	::Of course you're always free to contact the copyright holder and come to some sort of arrangement with them which allows you to use the work under a different license. — ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			:{{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.}}
			:
			:] (]) 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
	= April 29 =
			: ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 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? ==
	== Why is my ethnicity (Thai, Thai American) classified as Other Asian and not a separate category like Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, etc? ==

			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)
	Why is my ethnicity (Thai, Thai American) classified as "Other Asian" and not a separate category like Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, etc?
			: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)
	I was taking a state examination and there an ethnicity boy of the test scantron. I has those ethnicities mention except Thai. The State of California Department of Education do this? I don't mean to defame the department. I know the Thai, Cambodian, and Laotian ethnicities are similar. I know that Thai American is a minority group. I think classifying Thai as "Other Asian" is similar to racism. Why they do it and what should I do? ] ] 00:19, 29 April 2008 (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)
			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)
			: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 ==

			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.
	:I believe that they list those questions according to the most common answers given. Apparently there were too few Thais last time they asked to give it its own category. I wouldn't call it racism at all, just simple numbers. ] (]) 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS.
	::Exactly. There are literally hundreds of separate Asian ethnicities living in California. They may not all be as numerous as the Thais, but they all can't practically be named. For that matter, "Chinese" is a catchall term. A Cantonese or Uighur person might ask why he is being lumped in with all those other Chinese. A better question might be, "What right does the California Dept. of Education have to ask such a question?" I never answer bureaucrats' questions about my ethnicity or religion as a matter of principle. --] \| ] 01:26, 29 April 2008 (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)
	::: Be happy you didn't have to check a box "Indian" and then have to explain "No, no not from India." Used to happen all the time and not to immigrants either! --] (]) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			:] Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start
	== art terminology ==
			: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)

			= December 15 =
	I was reading a book on ancient Rome, and there was a picture of a sculpture, and the caption described "Augustus on the left." It was clear that Augustus was on ''my'' right, but ''his'' left. When describing paintings and sculptures using left/right terminology, I thought it was conventional to refer to the viewer's left and right, not the people as depicted in the artwork. What of this?? I searched "art terminology" on wikipedia, but found nothing. thanks in advance. ] (]) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception ==
	:When you are looking at a painting, it is essentially a two-dimensional representation, and you are generally supposed to view it from head on (not to enter into any discussion of ]. Left and right can refer unambiguously to your left and your right. However a sculpture, other than a relief, is essentially a three-dimensional object that can be seen from any direction, and right and left can become ambiguous. In general you see a picture of a sculpture in a book, which then returns the case to two dimensions, but the writer may not have been thinking of the pictorial representation when composing the caption. My suspicion, though, is that the original wording was "on his left" but was edited incorrectly at some point. Or just possibly that the photo was printed reversed, which happens. ] (]) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	== church loyalty ==

			: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)
	Hi, I was reading ''After the Black Death'' by George Huppert, and it described the position of the Christian Churches in Medieval/ early modern society, saying they effectively had a marginal role in the lives of ordinary people. I want to be careful that no one misinterprets me here, because it does not claim Christianity was irrelevant politically. It's a work of social history, and the section on religion focuses on the laity, and goes to some lengths to illustrate their degree of skepticism, disinterest and occasionally heresy. I'll quote a couple of sentences:
	:''In spite of pressure from the authorities - and in spite of the efforts made by presumably zealous clergymen - the mass of the population kept resisting indoctrination. This was true of Lutheran Saxony as well as of Catholic Bavaria - and it was true in the cities as well as in the countryside.''
	As for evidence, the book gives mainly anecdotes, primarily from rural communities, and apparently mostly from historical "ethnographies" of village life by the likes of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. I'm willing to assume the picture is reasonably accurate (feel free to dispute this), so it would appear that sometime in the modern era, after say the French Revolution, it seems the Churches made great headway against this apathy. Perhaps they never achieved the levels of indoctrination they wished for, since the main problem presented by Huppert was simply ignorance of Church doctrine (for example about the Trinity), which may have remained all throughout Christian history. Yet it would appear that there was a rise in respect for Christianity the last couple of centuries, and a big increase in its social profile. If indeed this is true, when did it start, and how did it happen? Thanks in ad. ] (]) 04:17, 29 April 2008 (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 ].  --] 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I suspect that this varies by country. England and the United States, for example, gained an emphasis on personal piety, and thus 'indoctrination' as you call it, from the 18th century ]. Serious religion, up to then, may have been largely for the middle classes. However, as far as I know the Great Awakening did not spread outside English-speaking countries, so I am at a loss as to what happened in Bavaria and Saxony, or elsewhere in Catholic Christendom. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			::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.  --] 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 ==
	== roman citizenship ==

			How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated)
	Yet another question from me - I always ask them in batches of about three. In the Roman empire (including the republic) Roman citizens were afforded protection throughout the realm. When this came up, and someone claimed in a legal case that he was a citizen, how was this proven? Did they have records (say from their censuses) that were sufficiently accurate to determine the matter, or did they have to take witnesses and investigate the claim in detail before the case could proceed? I know they took censuses, but it sounds like they relied on people simply reporting who was in their household, so it seems like they would have been easy enough to dodge, eg. if a Roman patriarch wanted to "donate" the gift of citizenship to friends he had made in a province (or sell it for that matter). thanx ] (]) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	:That's an interesting question; the most famous example of claiming '']'' was, of course, ]. I suspect (only) that the answer to your question is that the issue simply didn't arise; in the Roman Empire, as in the British, all were considered 'Roman' to the extent that they had ]. --] <small>]</small> 16:55, 29 April 2008 (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)
	Of course there was always the iron ring of citizenship, ehich was given to all children at birth or manumition of slaves. Maybe they just asked the accused to show them how he put his toga on. That would have been hard. All Citizens were registered at birth in Rome. Most citizens woul dhave travelled the empire in groups or just lived with the ex-pat community. This would probably have been enough.Or maybe just the proper roman accent and behavior were good enough checks.
	] (]) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			::] was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though.
	: As Major Bonkers writes, this is an interesting question because the experts themselves ''don't fully know'' -- although there are numerous clues & theories. Keep in mind that the number & importance of Roman citizenship varied greatly over the existence of the Empire: under the Principate it was an important matter with a number of important privileges, but as time passed it became less important until the moment during the Severan dynasty when almost all non-slave inhabitants of the Empire became citizens (which is mentioned in a by-the-way fashion, just one more step ] took to increase tax revenue). Further, keep in mind how facts were established in legal cases: because most communities were small & intimate, everyone knew who were Roman citizens & who were not.
			::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)
	: Of course, some people moved or changed in status, so one could not depend on community memory to keep the facts straight. So one needed proof that one had undergone one of the steps needed to become s Roman citizen: these included military service, being a decurion of specific towns, being the ] of a citizen, & inheriting this rank from one's father. In the case of veterans, there are surviving examples of documents, known as diplomas, which attest to the fact the person named is a Roman citizen. Being ] -- that is, released from slavery -- was a significant act, which required a formal ceremony before witnesses & entitled the freedman (who was, however, not completely free, but still owed a degree of dependence to his formal master) to wear specific garments (IIRC, these garments included a cap). In other cases, the proof would be less formal, & one would likely to have needed to supply various proofs of citizenship. I would expect that a Roman citizen travelling to a new town would, at the least, carry with him a letter of introduction to one or more notables at his destination who would help him prove his rightful rank -- as well as possess an articulate knowledge of the rights of Roman citizenship.
			::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)
	: Now the case of Paul is interesting, not only because it is one of the few attested cases of how the Empire handled the issue of citizenship, but because when presented with this problem many of the Imperial officials preferred to ''do nothing'' about it. While citizenship meant that a person could not be executed, it did not keep the official from imprisoning this individual while he "reviewed the case" -- i.e., did nothing. So Paul was imprisoned by one governor, while the next one parolled him, actually had someone study the facts of his case, only to decide that it might be too politically risky to decide on his fate, & sent him to Rome with a request for instructions. (Apparently, although Paul had acquired a reputation for being a troublemaker, his citizenship was known by enough people that the usual solution for such people -- summary execution -- would have been a career-limiting action.)
			: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)
	: To answer the last part of the OP's questions, doubtlessly the grant of citizenship was abused, & doubtlessly there were individuals who passed themselves off as Roman citizens who were not. Corruption, favoritism & deception are not modern crimes. ;) -- ] (]) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			:And of course I should rather think that most monarchs of Hawaii are buried in the USA. ] (]) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --] (]) 02:50, 17 December 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)
	== Social consensus ==
	From a sociological perspective, how is it possible to be remain an active part of society while actively challenging social consensus ? Can being a ''heretic'' have occasional benefits ?

			= December 17 =
	For example, the vast majority of the West clearly favors a woman's ''right'' to an abortion. How can one dare call himself ''Western'' if he/she is pro-life ? Is such a position taboo ?

	Can there be any moral equivalence between Western and non-Western societies ? It is as Montesquieu said in his '']'' : ''Comment peut-on être persan ?''

			== Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800 ==
	Does society have any obligations towards itself ? For example, can a society survive on the long term if it does not have babies and/or accepts things like active euthanasia ? In East Germany and Russia, demographers predict a vast population decline because of a legacy of agressive statism.

			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)
	] (]) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	: ~~The~~ ~~key~~ is to ~~not~~ ~~succumb~~ to ~~''rudeness''.~~ ~~Either~~ ~~responding~~ to ~~rudeness~~ ~~with~~ ~~rudeness,~~ or ~~initiating~~ ~~rudeness~~ ~~out~~ of ~~your~~ ~~own~~ ~~frustration.~~ As ~~long~~ as ~~you~~ ~~are~~ ~~polite,~~ ~~you~~ ~~can~~ ~~say or do anything you please~~. ] (]) 17:00, 29 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (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... ] (]) 01:11, 17 December 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.
	#"Heresy" (in a loose sense of the word) can have positive benefits. See ] for the most obvious example. A majority of people in the US disagreed with integration, and his willingness to stand up against injustice is a major factor in the civil rights movement.
			:Source . It also has figures by county if you are interested.
	#It's quite possible to be against societal norms while still being a contributing member of that society. Again, see the ] as well as the anti-war protests of the 60's.
			:*p.494 38,498,572 acres, i.e. 60,154 square miles
	#Being pro-abortion is no more "Western" than being anti-abortion, and the reverse is also true. Such positions may be taboo ''within certain communities'', but are not on the whole anymore.
			:*p.497 10,674 parishes and parochial chapelries
	#How do you define "moral equivalence" in the first place?
	~~#Society~~ ~~can~~ ~~survive while allowing abortion and euthanasia~~, so ~~long~~ ~~as the use of those methods does not exceed necessary population growth.~~ -- ] (]) 22:26, 29 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		:*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:
	== Unknown artists ==
			:::{{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.}}
	Looking for information on unknown artists :-
			::::
	T.Monlimen or Montimen . Pier scene with sail and steamer , possibly about 1890-1910
			::::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)
	S.McKinley . Seascape with sail vessel and steamer . Looks more modern 1930's to 1970's
			::::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)
	M.Burns 1981 . Old sailing vessel Turakina which belonged to the New Zealand Shipping Co
			:::::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)
	Thanks A. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::::: 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):
	== why the sudden change of topic captain? ==
			:
			:] (]) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			== When was the first bat mitzvah? ==
	hallo people, why the sudden change of topic? or should i say context? the poor fellow ended up not knowing the name of the song!! captain i guess you were out of line when you shifted the discussion from music to synagogues.41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)davis
	i am referring to the April 23rd question about the classical music. captain!!!!! help the dude!!!! he dint ask about temples!!!! its not that i am pissed, i am just putting myself in his shoes.He must have felt down don't you think captain!!!! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			] 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)
	:To comment on a thread, click the little "edit" button next to the thread. Then, your comment will be connected to it. Putting a little rant here is of interest to nobody. It does nothing more than demonstrate a lack of understanding about using the reference desk. -- ]] 12:30, 29 April 2008 (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)
	:Additionally, your rant is without merit on all counts. Temples were asked about, and the song title was provided. — ] 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			:Parts from Google's translation of ]:
			::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.
			: --] 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 =
	== Fashion in Greece and Rome ==

			== Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century ==
	Did the ancients have a sense of fashion?] (]) 10:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes. ] (]) 12:30, 29 April 2008 (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)
	You might want to look at ] and ].] (]) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (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.  --] 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)
	:: They were late-comers, check out this http://www.egyptologyonline.com/dress.htm And if you're talking jewlry, beads and bangles are among the oldest things found in archeological digs. --] (]) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (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)
			: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.  --] 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 ]. - ] \| ] 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Intolerance by D. W. Griffith ==
	Understanding fashion in the widest sense, Julia, yes, they did. There is a lovely passage from ] about ], the Athenian politician, worth quoting at length;

			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)
	''All his statecraft and eloquence and lofty purpose and cleverness was attended with great luxuriousness of life, with wanton drunkenness and lewdness, and with effeminacy in dress-he would trail long purple robes through the agora...He also had a golden shield made for himself and decorated not with ancestral insignia but with the likeness of Eros wielding a thunderbolt. The reputable men of the city looked on all these things with loathing and indignation, and they feared his contemptuous and lawless spirit.''

			: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.  --] 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Now, there's a guy who really wanted to stand out!
			::<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.  --] 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Term for awkward near-similarity ==
	Obviously Alcibiades is making an extravagant personal statement, the mirror, perhaps, of his extravagant political style. But there were also group trends that excited comment among the more conservative Athenians. Here the most prominent were the young men who copied the styles of Sparta, with long beards and short cloaks, taken as a sign of their estrangement from the city's democratic culture. It was ] who coined the term 'Laconomania' for this phenomenon, describing its adherents in '']'' as 'long-haired, hungry, dirty and acting like ] by carrying the Spartan cane.'

			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)
	Changing trends in fashion, political or otherwise, were really nothing new in Athens. Before the outbreak of the Persian Wars men who started to adopt more elaborate hairstyles. ] describes one of these, in which the hair was tied behind the head in a knot called a chignon, and then fastened with a clasp of golden grasshoppers. This and other stylistic changes were influenced by the fashions of the Persian east. Not surprisingly all such affectations were abandoned as 'effeminate' in the wake of the ensuing wars.

			:The uncanniness of the ] would be a specific subclass of this.  --] 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	The Greeks were no different from other cultures in following the trends set by political icons. Just as the toothbrush moustache became commonplace in the Third Reich, so the fashion-conscious Greek male followed the clean-shaven look of ]. Indeed, Alexander was so significant here that he set the trend in the whole of the Greek world for at least half a millennium after his death. I think this was probably due to the fact that he was the first ruler to recognise the link between personal image and propaganda, restricting and controlling artistic representations of himself with great care, in sculpture, in paintings and on coins.

			== Yearbooks ==
	Te Roman sense of fashion was even more refined than that of the Greeks. While the Greek made distinctions in dress primarily on the basis of gender, the Romans introduced a dress code which allowed determination's to be made of an individuals status and function. Concepts of 'correct dress', and proper grooming, lay at the very centre of Roman culture. Both dress and manner of speech were thought to reflect a person's moral character. ], tutor to the Emperor Nero, writes:

			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)
	''The truly great man speaks informally and easily; whatever he says, he speaks with more assurance than pains. You are familiar with the carefully coiffed young men, with their gleaming beards and hair-everything from a box; you can never hope for anything strong or solid from them. ''

			:It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	When ] wanted to be particularly cutting about public figures he held in distaste he focused on perceived idiosyncrasies of style. He was at his most acidy in his descriptions of Gabinus and Piso, the Consuls for the year 58BC. He describes Gabinus 'dripping with unguents', with his hair artificially waved. And as for Piso;
			:One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever.  --] 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)
	''Great Gods! How repulsively he walked, how fierce, how terrible to look at! You would say that you saw one of those bearded men of old, a very exemplum of the ancient regime, an image of antiquity, a pillar of the state. He was clothed harshly in our common purple, which was nearly black, with his hair so shaggy that at Capua, where he held the office of a duumvir in order to add another title to the wax portrait image he would leave for posterity, he looked as if he were ready to carry off the street of perfumers and hairdressers on his locks''.
			: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 =
	It was always dangerous for a Roman in public life to depart from the strict standards of 'Republican virtue', for this was invariably taken as a sign of frivolity or effeminacy. But the fact that such criticism appears regularly over prolonged periods of time shows that there were many prepared to challenge convention by making small personal fashion statements. Designs themselves were fairly consistent, so innovations in material and colouring were the most obvious ways of individualising dress or capturing a popular trend. ] noted this, criticising such innovations as 'sheer vanity.'

			== Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source? ==
	Women, too, were as fashion conscious as the men, with hairstyle being the main way of expressing personal preferences. ] noted "It is impossible to enumerate all the different styles: each day adds more adornments." This was another trend that unsettled the censorious Seneca, as he makes clear in his tribute to his mother, Helvia;

			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)
	''You-unlike so many others-never succumbed to immorality, the worst evil of the century; jewels and pearls did not bend you...The bad example of lesser women-dangerous even for the virtuous-did not lead you to stray from the old-fashioned, strict upbringing you received at home...You never polluted yourself with makeup, and never wore a dress that covered about as much on as it did off. Your only ornament, the kind of beauty that time does not tarnish, is the great honour of modesty. ''
			: 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)
			: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>
			: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>  --] 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)? ==
	So, yes, there was fashion, even if Seneca disapproved! ] (]) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			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".
	== Youth in Ancient Rome ==

			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?
	=== Teenage Crime in Greece and Rome ===

			Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play:
	Did they have a 'hoodie' problem? ] (]) 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Use your bloody brain. There were no 'hoodies' in ancient Rome. ] (]) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::'Hoodie' is used as a pejorative term in the UK for a young person who engages in ] (or who is perceived to be the kind of person who would behave antisocially). — ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 12:44, 29 April 2008 (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.
	::Actually, I seem to recall reading that a hooded top was so frequently seen on the Britons Romans encountered that they termed it a 'brittani' or some such. So, assuming that is true, there were hoodies. And given that Britain was quite troublesome at times, no doubt they had a hoodie problem :) Certainly hooded tops are not a completely new idea. ] (]) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (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)
	::"The ploughman wears a hooded cloak, a rainproof woollen garment typical of Britain and Gaul." Looking at various things, looks like it was called a ''birrus''. ] (]) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			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."
	Hi Julia. Our article on ] gives you some information on family structure. Fathers were considered to have absolute power over their children, so I wouldn't be surprised if teenage rebellion was a feature of social life. gets you several links on the coming of age ceremony for boys, which would have been in the teenage years. Crime was very common in Rome, a large city, but I don't know if there was any parcticular focus on youth crime. As for children, boys were sent to school, though girls were not, so at least children were considered to need educating. We also have an article on the ]. If you can search the archives of this desk, I think I remember a discussion here within the last couple of months about the attitudes of past civilizations towards children. I think the consensus was that the idea that children were treated or thought of any differently in the past than today was a fallacy. Hope all this helps you, ] (]) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Found the previous discussion; read it ] (]) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			: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)
	There is a good mosaic of a Briton wearing a Birrus Brittanicus at ]. It came to be known as this. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:::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. ] ] 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 =
	Juvenal delinquency is an old problem. Socrates was accused of encouraging it, & condemned to death. And in later centuries there was the upper-crust ] of London. Considering that an effective urban police force only came into existence with the ] -- order in ancient Rome was kept by a combination of slave watchmen, the ], & when necessary the ]: effective for coping with riots & other emergencies, but of minimal use with identifying thieves and murderers -- I would be surprised if there ''weren't'' street gangs in ancient Rome. -- ] (]) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Mike Johnson ==
	We now have a ] stub article, thanks to 79.66.99.37 and Quidom. Quidom, if you have a reference for the mosaic, could you drop by the stub and put it in? Thanks ] (]) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	=== Childhood in ancient Rome ===

			: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)
	How did they view children?] (]) 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:As pests. ] (]) 12:28, 29 April 2008 (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)
	::I thought they viewed children as a continuous wave of electromagnetic radiation reflected and/or re-emitted by the children and then collected in specialized cone and rod cells embedded inside the retina which caused electronic signals to be interpreted by the brain as children. -- ]] 12:33, 29 April 2008 (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)
	:::Mr. Kainaw, you've done something few others have. You made me laugh. ] (]) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			:: I assume you mis-spoke: ''to show his support for ... anti-semitism''. ] (]) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	: http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/greecerome/Romeroles1.html This might give you some clues. --] (]) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (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 while lecturing at a synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia (and under him Trump while groping the ]). Was Johnson speaking at a synagogue?  --] 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::It may have been .  --] 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)
	Worth pointing out that ] has now been blocked. --] <small>]</small> 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:No, that's an old block notice, it seems. It expired after one week, so he's back to his old tricks. Time for another block, perhaps. -- ] (]) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol ==
	==Remote==

			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)
	What is the furthest land point from inhabited places? How far away is it from the nearest inhabited place? ]/] 12:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			: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)
	:The South Pole?] (]) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			::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 =
	:: (edit conflict) : Have a look at ]. it depends what you mean by inhabited. The poles are a quick pick but the South is constantly occupied now. May be the North pole as its all ice sheet not continent ( no oil!). Otherwise an island in one of the southern oceans, Indian, Southern or South Pacific. Or a point in a desert, probably in North Africa. We have infested the planet to a degree that anytime, anywhere one of us is passing through and "inhabiting" it. If you find a desert island that doesnt have a reality tv show on it let us know! ] (]) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			== London Milkman photo ==
	:::umm I said South Atlantic too didn't I ?: ] is the remotest point but thats still inhabited... and sadly maybe least inhabited might be the best we can do. Even high points like Everest are pretty much occupied a lot of the time. Now this is what I like about Misplaced Pages: try ] ] (]) 12:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	::::just thinking... remoteness may not necessarily be a matter of distance but, as I feel, dislocation from the tyranny of time. One may well ask oneself , as a test of distance, what time is it here? The South Pole runs , amazingly for our American hegemonists, on New Zealand time, although when you look at the globe you will realise that since all time zones coincide there, then time can't be nailed down. So I would define uninhabitation and remoteness in terms of a number of factors: not just people, distance but also unimportance of time zone ] (]) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			: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 ...}}".  --] 11:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	] says the continent has no permanent residents, so you could consider it to be uninhabited, and calculate the furthest point from settlements on the southern islands. However, some of the research stations are permanently staffed, so take your pick as to whether they are uninhabited or not. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
			:I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "] Archive", which might mean it was in ]. ] ] 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? ] ] 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? ] ] 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. ] ] 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)
	== Trying to find a certain Rev. Jesse Jackson speech ==
			*: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)
			*::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)
			: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)

			::Has anyone checked the Gale ''Picture Post'' archive for October 1940? I don't have access to it. ] (]) 22:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	I've been told that ]'s '''' uses samples from a certain ]'s speech, and I do seem to vaguely remember it. But I can't find the speech in question. Does anyone know? (follow the link to listen) ] (]) 13:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

			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)
	What happens if there are two democratic presidental runners, and neither one of them recieves enough deleget votes to run for president? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: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)
	:Which country are you talking about? Different countries have different constitutional arrangements for such an eventuality. ] (]) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (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.  --] 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 ==
	The United States <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	:You do not need any delegates of any kind to run for President. For example, ] didn't have any delegates (Democrat or Republican). As for choosing an official Democrat to run for President, the Democrat party will ensure that they back somebody. -- ]] 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			: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}}.  --] 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	: The Democratic party rules say: "Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected." They do it in rounds called ballots. The rules (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/f4225987fd9e438ef7_fqm6bev2k.pdf) state that "All delegates pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." But also says "Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice." They vote in rounds if no one gets the majority they have another round. As you can see in ] under History there were conventions that had to do quite a few rounds before they were done. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			= December 24 =
	== Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr ==

			== Testicles in art ==
	Hi everybody! I have a question: how do we know for sure (i.e. where do I have to look) that ] was a son of ]? The wikipedia articles about him and ] assess this fact without any reference... Thank you very much! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:]
			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 ]. ] ] 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? ==
	: At his name. "Ap Llywelyn Fawr" is Welsh for "son of Llywelyn Fawr". If he were the son of Tangwystl Goch, he would be known as "Gruffydd ap Tangwystl Goch". -- ] (]) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (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.
	:: Tangwystl Goch would be his mother, llywrch. 62.147.187.61, Google Scholar gave up some hits for her, but you'd need to be on a library account to read them. You could also try finding if any of the are online in searchable form and see if there is a reference to her. Best luck, ] (]) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (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).
	:::The principal early sources for Gruffudd ap Llywelyn are '']'' ('The chronicle of the princes') and ]'s '']''. ] 22:27, 29 April 2008 (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.
	==Scottish coat of arms==
	Do we (here a wikipedia) have a picture of the scottish coat of arms (as used today)!?! I have seen and already. I would prefer one with out the supporters. Just the 'shield' so to speak! The English equivalent is . Thanks so much for any help! --] (]\|]\|]) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			Also do you know of other such situations in European history?
	:James VI's version of the Shield of Arms isn't quite the one Queen Elizabeth uses, but you could swap the top right corner for an enlarged copy of the three leopards. ]
	:The banner of arms, known as the Royal Standard, is also in the project (right). ]
	:There are a lot more shields at ], but not exactly the one you want.
	:I don't think anyone has contributed the modern Royal Shield for Scotland, since it is most often seen (as far as I can guess) as a coat of arms with the supporters, and as the Royal Standard.
	:By the way, the image you linked, the one with the supporters: ] is a ''vector image'', so you could download it and use a program like Inkscape to cut out the shield. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			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)?
	== Iris Murdoch and existentialism ==

	~~When did Iris Murdoch turn against existentialism?~~] (]) 16:37, 29 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		] (]) 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 ] (always strictly patrilineal) being divided into the House of Artois, House of Bourbon, House of Anjou, etc. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:According to Peter J. Conradi's ''Iris Murdoch: The Saint and the Artist'', very quickly after becoming interested in it. Murdoch met Sartre and had a 'flirtation' with existentialism, but she found that it "neither swam nor drowned" - it was too priggish, too long-faced, for her. ] 22:08, 29 April 2008 (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)
			:::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)

			: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)
	== Antisocial behavior in U.K. ==

			= December 25 =
	An earlier question about problems with "hoodies" got me thinking about British politicians current obsession with "antisocial behaviour". I'm an American and not sure what they're talking about. Are they referring to teenagers being obnoxious in public or is this some Orwellian euphemism for actual crime? Where does the recent hand wringing about it come from? --] \| ] 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	:There is some history etc in our article on ]s. ] (]) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Death Row commutations by Biden ==
	::That article and related ones are somewhat informative, but I'm still unclear on some things. The definition of ] that can lead to an ASBO seems incredibly vague. What kind of actions typically lead to such an order? If I'm running down the sidewalk quickly and someone is "alarmed" that I might fall and hurt myself, can I be hit by a anti-social behavior order? If I see someone else doing the same thing and shout, "Watch where you're going, jackass!" and the other person is distressed or alarmed, can I likewise fall under an ASBO? How would my behavior typically be restricted by such an order? --] \| ] 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

	~~::Also,~~ ~~what~~ ~~was~~ the ~~impetus~~ ~~behind~~ ~~the~~ ~~asbo~~ ~~provisions~~ of ~~the~~ ]? ~~Was~~ ~~there~~ the ~~perception~~ ~~that~~ ~~harassment~~ ~~and~~ ~~vandalism~~ ~~were~~ ~~out~~ of ~~control~~ and ~~needed~~ a ~~special~~ ~~remedy~~? ~~The~~ ~~whole~~ ~~issue~~ ~~has~~ the ~~whiff~~ of ] to ~~me.~~ --] \| ] 20:16, 29 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (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)

			: 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)
	:::Moral panic is reasonably close to the mark, D Monack. ASBOs were introduced by politicians who wished to be seen "doing something" about the perceived problems of bored and obnoxious teenagers and nuisance neighbours, which are a regular theme in some sections of the British media. ASBOs were taken up relatively slowly at first - just 466 between 1998 and 2002, but up to 9853 by 2005 , as their true potential became apparent. The beauty of an ASBO, you see, is that '''you can use it to criminalise behaviour which is not in itself criminal'''. Just so long as someone accepts that harrassment, alarm or distress may be caused in some way to someone, almost anything may become ASBO-able. In addition to the examples in the article, see here and here for a couple of interesting cases. Your running-about-on-the-sidewalk example is no sillier than some, honestly it isn't. Then, if the person repeats the behaviour again (trampolining, feeding pigeons, swearing because they have ], whatever), you can whip out the ASBO and - hey presto! - they have a criminal record for breaching it. People can be evicted from social housing if convicted of breaching ASBOs, and if you are evicted because of your own actions you can be dubbed "intentionally homeless", which absolves the local authority from the duty to rehouse you, thus handily moving the problem elsewhere.
	:::The effectiveness of ASBOs in dealing with genuinely obnoxious, disruptive and anti-social individuals - of any age - can be gauged by the high level of breaches, the view of them by some as a badge of honour and the increasing popularity of Asbo as a dog's name. -- <strong>]]</strong> 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Coca Romano's portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania ==

	::::The ASBO system is, indeed, hopelessly vague. It's important to understand that these Orders can be made against behaviour which is not actually a crime, and that they can order the person concerned not to do things which are likewise not a crime, and yet that breaking such an order, once made, ''is'' a crime. Alas, the existence of this approach to 'antisocial behaviour', whether by young villains or by anyone else, means that the primary responsibility for doing something no longer falls unambiguously on the police and leads to many UK forces abandoning the old-fashioned method of detecting actual crimes against the person and prosecuting those responsible. You ask "Was there the perception that harassment and vandalism were out of control and needed a special remedy?" Yes, there was, but there was also the ''reality'' that they were out of control in many places. Why? - partly because of a general break-down in youth discipline (many secondary schools in the UK are disaster areas for this) but also partly because in recent years the British police have generally been focussed by their political masters on meeting a range of 'crime-reduction' targets, and (what a surprise!) 'anti-social behaviour' doesn't normally feature in the targets set. No great surprise, then, that the police aim their resources into the areas covered by the targets set for them: it would be remarkable if they did anything else. ] 21:44, 29 April 2008 (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.
	::::Trampolining? Feeding pigeons? It really has gone too far, hasn't it? Thanks for the updates. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (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.
	== Economic Stimulus ==

			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. - ] \| ] 04:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	(not asking for advice, asking for ''fact''.

			(I've uploaded the image to Flickr, if anyone wants a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54225746973/). - ] \| ] 05:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	If a couple's income is too high to qualify for their $1,200, and they have children under 17, will they still get $300 per child? Most articles I've read don't really clarify on it. ] (]) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:RD/H

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.

December 11

Shopping carts

Where were the first shopping carts introduced?

shopping cart and Sylvan Goldman say the Humpty Dumpty chain
Piggly Wiggly says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review

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 carrots→ 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? 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 carrots→ 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). 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

explanation here
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 futures contracts they will probably go over my head. TSventon (talk) 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? 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 carrots→ 11:34, 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:

Gerardo Machado, president of Cuba from 1925 to 1933
Carlos Prío Socarrás, president of Cuba from 1948 to 1952
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 carrots→ 21:45, 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.

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 TSventon (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am more asking when the bat mitzvah ritual became part of common Jewish practice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:53, 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:51, 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 carrots→ 23:42, 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 carrots→ 14:40, 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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: