| Revision as of 04:02, 9 October 2013 editTwinpinesmall (talk | contribs)377 edits →Use of the Romansh language in Swiss, legal citations.← 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: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H |
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| ]</noinclude> | |||
| = December 11 = | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 4}} | |||
| == Shopping carts == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 5}} | |||
| Where were the first shopping carts introduced? | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 6}} | |||
| *] and ] say the Humpty Dumpty chain | |||
| *] 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. ] (]) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (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. | |||
| = October 7 = | |||
| : 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). | |||
| : 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) | |||
| == Verhoeven's sneaking sympathy for RAH? == | |||
| == Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII == | |||
| The conventional wisdom is that Paul Verhoeven's film version of '']'' is a deliberate satire on ], a way to show what a reprehensible fascist ] was. Supposedly Verhoeven started work on the film before optioning the rights to the novel, then read only part of it, finding it depressing, and then made a film intended to subvert everything RAH was trying to say. | |||
| 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) | |||
| But you know, I must have seen the film several times by now in bits and pieces (it seems to be always on cable when I'm flipping through late at night). And admittedly there are a number of set pieces that fit the narrative above, mostly but not exclusively the Federal propaganda broadcast on television, plus some of the behavior of victorious troops towards captured Bugs. But outside of ''those'', honestly, the movie feels fairly sympathetic. | |||
| :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 = | |||
| An example: When Rico asks his History & Moral Philosophy teacher whether he should join up, the teacher replies, "the only freedom any of us really has is to figure things out for ourselves. Use that freedom." That's a line that could very easily have flowed from Heinlein's pen, and the context does not appear ironic at all (even if Rico's application of it is to be led into service because he likes a girl). | |||
| == The USA adding a new state == | |||
| So what's going on here? Is Verhoeven's satire too subtle to register with me, or did he fail to get it across? Or does he have more sympathy for the supposedly "fascist" Heinlein (a complete slander in my book, BTW) than he lets on? --] (]) 06:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If my understanding is correct, the following numbers are valid at present: (a) number of Senators = 100; (b) number of Representatives = 435; (c) number of electors in the Electoral College = 538. If the USA were to add a new state, what would happen to these numbers? Thank you. ] (]) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The number of senators would increase by 2, and the number of representatives would probably increase by at least 1. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thus, to answer the final question, the minimum number of Electors would be 3… more if the new state has more Representatives (based on population). ] (]) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In the short term, there would be extra people in congress. The ] had 437 representatives, because Alaska and Hawaii were granted one upon entry regardless of the apportionment rules. Things were smoothed down to 435 at the next census, two congresses later. --] (]) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me re-phrase my question. (a) The number of Senators is always 2 per State, correct? (b) The number of Representatives is what? Is it "capped" at 435 ... or does it increase a little bit? (c) The number of Electors (per State) is simply a function of "a" + "b" (per State), correct? Thanks. ] (]) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The movie shows a highly hierarchical society drenched in media that are obvious propaganda for the military state, so when the teacher says "freedom to figure things out for ourselves" it uses the chance that the students will have been sufficiently influenced, that is to say brainwashed, by these outside factors to choose what they are meant to choose. That is how sophisticated propaganda works and has done since the early 20th century when it was refined by the totalitarian states. I haven't read the novel, so I have nothing to comment about Verhoevens intentions regarding that, but the movie does seem to brilliantly explore the question of the theories of free will and political freedom in face of modern media and ideals influenced by power structures. --] (]) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As I understand it, it is indeed capped at 435, though Golbez brings up a point I hadn't taken into account -- apparently it can go up temporarily when states are added, until the next reapportionment. --] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{br}}I suggest that (b) would probably depend on whether the hypothetical new state was made up of territory previously part of one or more existing states, or territory not previously part of any existing state. And I suspect that the eventual result would not depend on any pre-calculable formula, but on cut-throat horsetrading between the two main parties and other interested bodies. {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nope, it's capped at 435. See ]. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --] (]) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Constitution has a much higher cap, currently around eleven thousand. ] (]) 20:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, one other refinement. The formula you've given for number of electors is correct, for states. But it leaves out the ], which gets as many electors as it would get if it were a state, but never <s>less</s> <u>more</u> than those apportioned to the smallest state. In practice that means DC gets three electors. That's why the total is 538 instead of 535. --] (]) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Oops; I remembered the bit about the smallest state wrong. It's actually never ''more'' than the smallest state. Doesn't matter in practice; still works out to 3 electors for the foreseeable future, either way, because DC would get 3 electors if it were a state, and the least populous state gets 3. --] (]) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </small> | |||
| = December 13 = | |||
| I'm ''so'' glad to find someone else spotting out problems of this self-contradictory film like that. Thank you, Trovatore! My opinion is that Verhoeven just wanted to make another movie about which you could quibble greatly, which ensures public debate, viewers, and money. There's nothing else behind. --] (]) 07:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == economics: coffee prices question == | |||
| :I'll just say that my impression is that Verhoeven has been obsessed with fascist themes ever since ] -- they are especially glaring in ] -- and he portrays them in a way that I find very unpleasant. In fact I have refused to watch any of his movies since ], although I've seen snippets of Starship Troopers in various places. I don't think Heinlein would have liked Verhoeven at all, though. ] (]) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Here's a link to . Note that the director describes some of the effects (not the aliens) as kitschy, but nowhere does he speak of fascism. He says he was eager to do the film. (Kind of hard to be fascist in a free society when army service is voluntary and there is no war between humans. Unless maybe you define patriotism as fascism.) Then look at the caption added by the interviewer under Neil Patrick Harris describing him as ''Goebels''! That's a disservice to those who haven't seen the movie, an insult to those who have, and an attack on historical dignity. ] (]) 17:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Well... <small>(glossing Verhoeven the same way he glossed Heinlein)</small> I can sort of see where the criticism comes from (even if I don't quite think it fits). Allowing full citizenship and voting rights solely to people who have served in the military sticks in a lot of people's craw, including mine. While Heinlein notes that the "Federal service" necessary to earn citizenship is not limited to the military, we never really see what other government duties qualify. Do they have a ] (or equivalent)? What do people do who want to serve and earn citizenship, but have serious moral objections to the means or even the ends of government policy? If you want to change policy, first you have to help enact it, no matter how horrific it may be? That's not an individualist position, no matter what else Heinlein has written elsewhere. I always thought he could have done a little more to ensure the reader's understanding that, having once looked into the Bug abyss, we must recognize that it looked also into us, and take care lest we become, like the Bugs, unwilling or unable to consider the individual in the face of the mass's interests (the H&MP class's "Men are not potatoes" line is insufficient given the government structure he's set up at such length). A claim that everyone who thinks this does indeed smack of fascism to some degree is "defin patriotism as fascism" is a straw man, I think. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> 21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think you're focusing on an aspect of how the workings of the State are decided, rather than what they actually are. Heinlein was indeed openly questioning whether ''voting'' should be extended on what he called the "warm-body" criterion; that was a theme he addressed in non-fiction essays as well. If the State is defined as the body with a monopoly on violence, then voting is tantamount to directing violence by proxy, and Heinlein explored various ideas about how that power should be allocated. | |||
| ::: But there is no indication in the novel (and hardly any in the film, actually) that anyone suffers loss of ''personal liberty'' by not being a citizen. Now, you can question whether that's realistic — unfortunately, it really is questionable — but Heinlein's ''intent'' seems to be that, if you just want to direct your individual life, you will be as much as possible left alone to do it. --] (]) 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I despaired of bothering to say that; thanks for doing so, Trovatore. I would just add, under Heinlein's system, no one would be prevented from volunteering for a private peace corps, which is a ''charity'', and no one would be forced to pay for it through his taxes, either. ] (]) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We seem to be starting to talk about two different things. All of the above was directed precisely at "how that power should be allocated," which is inextricably bound with "how the workings of the State are decided." I acknowledge 1) that there's nothing that ''necessarily'' or ''intrinsically'' means that restricting voting rights to veterans restricts the other civil rights of non-voters; and 2) that there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and doing whatever they can get away with to aid others. What I was trying to say is that there is something inherently flawed in a society that forces its members to participate in its policies before it will allow them the right to try to change those policies. In fact I imagine there must have been at least one debate in which ''Starship Troopers'' was brought up during the ] ratification campaign, albeit as a corollary rather than a direct argument: in order to vote against ] which you know to be a useless, foolish waste of lives with no significant difference between victory and defeat, you must first sign up to fight in that same war. These are not exact parallels, obviously; Heinlein is writing a thought experiment about citizenship in general while 26th Amendment advocates were talking about allowing the people who fight wars to have a say in when we go to war. But the point is that just societies try to ''minimize'' the inevitable ]s of governing, not build on them as cornerstones. All I was trying to say previously was that while ''I do not remotely agree with critics who describe Heinlein as advocating fascism,'' I do see why they were tempted to drop that particular ]. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Well, this may be a case where one's own views inevitably color things. Personally, I agree with ] that "that which one man may not morally do, a million men may not morally do", so I don't see why there's anything "inherently flawed" (and certainly not anti-individualistic) about not basing one's use of violence on any particular person's say-so, just because there might be a lot of people in the class that person belongs to. Now, as I say, it's probably not realistic to think that non-citizens' liberties would ''not'' be curtailed in some way, but unrealistic or not, it does seem to be the situation Heinlein describes. --] (]) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sure. But when that man or those million men disregard what they may or may not morally do, and the system of government is set up so that they are not subject to the votes of a broader population, even if that population has a clear view of their acts - that is not a situation set up to breed justice, except in the roughest frontier / guillotine sense. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :No matter what Verhoven says, reading ] suggests to me that the author was initially a supporter of various liberal causes - so much so that Isaac Azimov described him as "a flaming liberal" and in 1954 he described himself as having in his "...background much political activity well to the left of Senator McCarthy's position". Though it goes on to say "Isaac Asimov believed that Heinlein made a swing to the right politically at the same time he married ]]" (in 1948). It is quite a stretch to suppose he suddenly became a "reprehensible fascist". Is it not possible that the satire was in Heinlein's original novel and that Verhoven missed that completely simply because he gave up on the novel? ] (]) 19:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I identify three elements. The basic parts are the plot and theme, which are a coming of age story set in a time of war with an inscrutable enemy. Vehoeven sticks to this and while he omits some of the plot as is necessary in any film adaptation he doesn't rewrite it or lose its spirit. The second is the over-the-top acting and direction, as with the history teacher/drill instructor. There's nothing subtle or underplayed, no ambiguity, no long quiet shots of misty horizons without bombastic dialog. The third is the addition of the pop-up military recruitment adds and documentaries within the story itself. Those last two elements simply make the movie "modern" and attractive to males 18-34. They certainly don't vitiate the moral of the story. As for Heinlein, he went from a New Deal liberal to a classic liberal. Anyone who thinks he's a fascist is misinformed, to be generous. Read Farnham's Freehold about the nature of racism, where the white hero abandons his corrupt son and wife to save the black teen next door, or Friday, which is about the rights and dignity of women and genetically modified humans. Heinlein is entirely pro-human and pro-individual rights. ] (]) 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: <small>One can't simply place Heinlein on the liberal-conservative spectrum that exists in the United States (or anywhere else that I know of). At some point ] was a good word to describe Heinlein but now that this word has been recuperated by people who are very keen on restricting individual rights (regarding e.g. gay marriage) I'm uncomfortable making the association. I certainly doubt Heinlein felt attracted to either major political parties while he was alive and I doubt things would be different nowadays - although he probably would get along fairly well with ] (or at least better than with most politicians).</small> | |||
| ::: <small>I think the movie does a decent job of presenting Heinlein's ideas (] is a huge fan of the book) and I'm pretty certain Heinlein would have approved of the shower scene (which is a brilliant exposition, btw). I'm also fairly certain Heinlein approved of corporal punishment - I remember reading him saying that punishment should be swift, that the reason for the punishment should be clear, and that there should be no grudges afterwards, although I can't find where I'm getting this from. Certainly imprisonment seems at odd with his philosophy as a form of punishment. People have called both the movie and the book "fascistic" but I don't know that that is accurate. Heinlein was pretty radical in his way but to call him a fascist is to completely miss the point. Certainly one should read his oeuvre and make an idea for oneself - or least read some - the man is eminently quotable and extremely interesting (although not all his books are great from a literary standpoint) ] (]) 02:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. ] (]) 03:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Too stoned; didn't read? -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 18:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I wish. Too ''small'. Non-jokes should not be smalled--it is hard for some of us old folk to read all that small print, and I am averse to CTRL +. ] (]) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I always thought the film sequence that comes the closest to making the point Heinlein was most clearly trying to propound in ''Starship Troopers'' is the "His Name is Robert Paulsen" elegy in '']'' (''another'' book/movie that's been accused of smuggling "fascist" ideas into American culture). I'd insert a snide comment here about liberal commentators who still haven't noticed (much less gotten over) either the demise of the post-war consensus or the enormities wrought by its economic institutions and their successors, but this is ]. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It is worth considering that especially the movie, and perhaps the book, were not trying to portray a perfect society nor one which was absolutely evil, but merely sought a somewhat consistent set of ideas. It is pretty clear from the film that their society is dominated by propaganda, enters into war needlessly (remember the line about the disputed mining planets that led to war with the bugs), and makes a spectacle of suffering (a trait which is as much a sign of honesty as of brutality). Yet within the military citizenry it had preserved a sort of democracy. Though the logical contradiction of democratic rule with censorship and propaganda is unresolved - but it is also unresolved in real life, as with the PRISM controversy. ] (]) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :], they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the ]. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later | |||
| Any attempt to deal with fascism without dealing with its seductive nature is seriously suspect. In ''Starship Troopers'' Verhoeven manages to portray the seductive nature of fascism, in particular its idealisation of the subject's relationship to the national, concepts of service, etc. I find the imagery to be far more interesting though. Neil Patrick Harris in nazi regalia, genitally mutilating a giant psychic vagina monster and then claiming it is "afraid." The themes of war corruption, stab-in-the-back, and the weakness of the old in the fire base sequence. The mimicry of Pearl Harbour and its hysteric over reactions, and the prescient gesture towards the same recent cycle. Honestly, looking at the chief bug, my brain went T-34. I have no idea why, but it seems like nostalgia for the drang nach osten. Rather than a defilement of Heinlein, I'd prefer to think of this as a derivative work that would have failed if the source didn't provide such fruitful depth to explore these themes. Shakespeare's Hamlet is about a depressed student with Daddy issues, it isn't very faithful to the ur-text, but it is still a good play. ] (]) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*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 == | |||
| == Signing of constitiunal amendments (USA) == | |||
| 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) | |||
| G'day; | |||
| :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; | |||
| Do presidents sign constitiunal amendments? The only signed amendment I have seen is the 13th, signed by President Abraham Lincoln. The 25th does not show the signature of President Lyndon B. Johnson, but I have watched a documentary where he signed it. Interesting to note is, that congress passed it 1965, but President Johnson signed it sometime in 1967 when it became law. Or did he sign something else? Further, do governors sign amendments if their legislature approved an amendment (the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendments). Thanks in advance --] (]) 08:44, 7 October 2013 (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 | |||
| :The 1965-1967 time lag was to have enough states to ratify the amendment, 2-3 sometimes 4 years ''after'' being passed by Congress is somewhat typical for these. Good question on the signatures though.] 11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::^^That's very likely. But Lincoln signed the 13th before the states appoved. The 13th was finnaly ratfied after he was shot. --] (]) 13:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be ]s. ] (]) 14:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interesting 84.160.155.45, yet another reason President Lincoln was one smart cookie.] 19:38, 7 October 2013 (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? == | |||
| :Presidents aren't required to sign, but can, just as a show of support, if they wish. I'm not aware of governors signing US Constitutional amendments, although they might well symbolically sign amendments to their state constitutions. ] (]) 13:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm wondering if there has been analysis of this. The US government gets the tariff money(?) and biggest chunk will be on manufactured goods from China. Those in turn are primarily consumer goods, which means that the tariff is something like a sales tax, a type of tax well known to be regressive. Obviously there are leaks in the description above, so one would have to crunch a bunch of numbers to find out for sure. But that's what economists do, right? Has anyone weighed in on this issue? Thanks. ] (]) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are governors required to sign amendments to their state constitution (not federal constitution)? --] (]) 13:11, 7 October 2013 (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. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 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? ] (]) 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 == | |||
| :::Well, each state can set up their own rules, but I doubt if any would differ that much from the federal constitution. Requiring a governor to sign would completely eliminate a major point of amendments, bypassing the executive. ] (]) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| *The President's signature is ''not'' required since amendments must be passed with a 2/3 majority of both houses, which is equal to a congressional override of a veto. No reason he can't have a ceremonial signing. ] (]) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS. | |||
| == North/South split in Italy == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] The map from a previous question shows a division between the date homosexuality was legalised in the south of Italy (1800-1869) and the north (1870-1928). What was the legislative division at this point? Was there a simple north/south split or were/are there smaller administrative regions and those in the North just all happened to be slower in enacting this change? -- ] (]) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start | |||
| :See ]. Specifically, this date seems to correspond with the ], which deprived the Pope of political power. This would make sense, since it's hard to imagine the Pope authorizing the legalization of homosexuality, at least at that time. ] (]) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :A scan of the 1954 Carnegie electoral roll has | |||
| :*Dunn, Ronald Albert, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, accountant | |||
| :*Dunn, Gladys Harriet I, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, home duties | |||
| :I can't check newspapers.com, but The Age apparently had a report about Ronald Albert Dunn on 27 Jun 1972 ] (]) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I accessed Ancestry.com via the Misplaced Pages Library, so you should have access. Newspapers.com is also available via the library if you register, which I haven't. An editor with a Newspapers.com account would be able to make a clipping which anyone could access online. | |||
| :::I agree AAA is probably the Australian Society of Accountants, a predecessor of ]. They merged in 1953 () so the information would have been outdated in 1958. AAIS could be Associate Amalgamated Institute of Secretaries (source Abbreviations page 9). ] (]) 16:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. ] (]) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Or perhaps someone at ] could help? ] (]) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::They already have at ]. ] (]) 12:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Given his specialty, I suggest the honorific stands for "Aaaaaaaaagh It's (a) Spider!" ] (]) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| = December 15 = | |||
| ::Thanks. I had no idea that the unified Italy was so recent! -- ] (]) 13:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception == | |||
| :::Yep, and about the same for Germany. ] (]) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Germany had to do it all over again in '89 too.] 06:16, 8 October 2013 (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) | |||
| == Law == | |||
| :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) | |||
| If somebody stole sensitive information from a person, which would get that person into trouble with the law, could the stealer be sued too?--] (]) 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :With the caveat that we can not give legal advice here but can speak on general legal issues the best answer is anyone can sue anyone else for anything, absolutely anything, there are hundreds of cases every year that get dismissed before they are even given a court date as frivolous or worse have sanctions such as fees/fines assessed. | |||
| :I think <s>thou</s>though you're asking if they can prevail. Several factors play a part, was the thief under contract, under a non-disclosure agreement? Did it involve government work with a security clearance? Usually just simple data theft absence the above examples is not a civil matter but then one may end up like ] who despite being hailed as a "whistle blower" was convicted to jail time for the information, '']'' also gives a blow by blow of what life is like sharing sensitive information that the ones your accusing of law-breaking are accusing you of what amounts to bad-faith or broken contracts. | |||
| :Also "stealer" is better termed as: thief, phonetically it may be confused with a ] or someone on the ].] 19:49, 7 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :Under which legal jurisdiction? The question is unanswerable without specifying that. And you probably need to say who it is you think might do the suing. (It may still be unanswerable even with those specified: I don't know). --] (]) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :::Jurisdiction matters a lot, even if informed of the geographic location in the USA & some other nations there is even a vast difference in statute & precedence in the state courts from the federal courts for that state division & appeals district. I don't feel it is "unanswerable" <s>thou</s>tho legal questions with a lot of details get into the 'should not answer per: legal advice', perhaps I'm in error but when I ask a legal type question on here I intentionally make it vague so no response could constitute something to the effect of how to do it in the 5th Federal District of Appeals etc.] 19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Ottomans basically continued the Byzantine tax-collection system, for a while. ] (]) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would you ''please'' stop typing "thou" when you mean "though"? ''Thou'' is an actual word with a distinct pronunciation. If you want to economise, ''tho'' is available and has its adherents. ] (]) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Purists see the usage "tho" and say "ugh!" ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks μηδείς for catching that, I was thinking phonetically earlier in the thread but you seem to be right, been thinking that way this week too. Corrected it & thanks again. As far as the "purists" Bugs, it will be interesting to see if the Twitterization sweeps the current dialect to the modern equal of ] or even ].] 06:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not woried about spelling purity. I just keep thinking I am being addressed biblically. ] (]) 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<small>When I first read it I'm like all what μηδείς doing talking 'bout ].] 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::Nobody got my little "tho" + "ugh" joke. Oh well... So as regards being addressed biblically, do you mean as in those creatures Gog and Ma Gog and Granny Gog and all the little Gogs. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Some jokes are eminently gettable but even more eminently not-worth-commenting-onable. :) -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{small|I often get that very response from my wife. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::::::::I do get it...now (world speed record in the other direction!)] 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *] might also be relevant if you threaten to release the information if not compensated. ] (]) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is the wikilink I think μηδείς was meaning to type instead of -sion (spelling cultural?). It's cool, some minds think faster then the time it takes to type, I should know. :-). | |||
| :::I'd read OP to mean those times where the 'thief' is doing something based on principal or already 'burned his/her bridges' with the organization, making extortion less likely (though still possible) with a principled 'thief' refusing to accept any extortion or the 'burnt bridges' organization welcoming a public (& potentially litigation-bullying of the 'thief') fight. Then again μηδείς may be the most right, for every 'whistle blower' or 'insider' case complete with motivations & intents we hear of there could be dozens of organizations that were so successfully extorted that the secrets remain just that.] 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Going back to Marketdiamond's earliest response — see ]. According to his article, he sues deceased and fictional people as well as entities such as the Roman Empire, on top of real, living people. ] (]) 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nice find Nyttend, those filings would make for some entertaining reading as I stroll through my PACER or Google Scholar accounts lol.] 10:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Foreign Presidents/Heads of State CURRENTLY Buried in the USA == | |||
| :It doesn't stop people trying to report it as a crime... . ] (]) 11:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) | |||
| == Use of the Romansh language in Swiss, legal citations. == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Greetings! | |||
| :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) | |||
| I've been researching legal-citation guidelines from various countries, and have gotten somewhat bewildered by Switzerland's Civil Law. The country has 4 national languages, viz., French, German, Italian, and Romansh; also, their unique hierarchy of government dictates that only the court-of-last-resort is Federal, and all lower courts are those of the cantons. | |||
| ::] was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though. | |||
| According the ''Bluebook'' guide to legal citation (published by Harvard University) one may cite Swiss '''statutes''' and '''codes''' one of two ways: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| '''A.) With parallel, French and German citations—as well as with parallel, Italian citations, but only if they're "available and pertinent."''' | |||
| ::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) | |||
| or '''B.) With a citation in the one language "of which they are the most relevant."''' | |||
| :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) | |||
| Also, one may city a Swiss '''case''': | |||
| :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) | |||
| '''In whatever language the court issued the ruling.''' | |||
| = December 17 = | |||
| The ''Bluebook'' then goes on to say that all '''cantonal law''' must be cited in the "language or languages of the canton." It also lists the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in French, German, and Italian. | |||
| My question involves the fourth (and oftenest excluded) Swiss language, Romansh. Since it is one of three official languages in the canton of ''Graubünden'', then mustn't one also cite cantonal laws from there in said language? Also, has the federal court in Bern ever issued a ruling in Romansh? And finally, if one must (in certain situations) cite Swiss laws in Romansh, then does anybody here know where someone could find the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in the language? | |||
| == Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800 == | |||
| --Thank You. ] (]) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As for the abbreviations since you have the Bluebook, is a specific canton's abbreviations the same for all the languages? | |||
| :I understand some languages may invert (or revert) the word order and thus the abbreviation but part of the reason for abbreviations--especially in a multi-language state--is to assign a simplified, universal series of characters to something, but I can see how ethnic concerns could override that. | |||
| :My concern with the nature of this question thou is that jurists usually strive to be very clear & unambiguous in both pleadings & rulings. That is most likely why each canton can choose a language best for them but the Swiss stop short of having all cases in all languages. The focus for the courts isn't to appeal to all languages but to be clearly understood. For that reason I'd be surprised if the canton you mention would use more than one language in their court, the federal court as you mention may have resources for that and is forced to do that since cases are coming from different cantons but as you said "of last resort" which tells me the Swiss really try and keep the cases in the cantons where "lost in translation" will not be a problem usually.] 20:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| What would have been the typical extent (in square miles or square kilometers) of an English parish, circa 1800 or so? Let's say the median rather than the mean. With more interest in rural than urban parishes. -- ] (]) 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi. While the Swiss Confederation has four national languages, including ], it has only three ''official'' languages - German, Italian and French. That is, although some important federal laws are translated into Romansh and native Romansh speakers may (in theory) write to federal authorities in Romansh, there are no federal authorities, including courts, that work in Romansh and the Federal Supreme Court hasn't ever issued an opinion in Romansh. The very thorough of the Federal Supreme Court mention all relevant terms and abbreviations in the three official languages but do not mention Romansh. The of the Federal Chancellery has Romansh translations for some terms related to court decisions, e.g. ''Bundesgerichtsentscheid, BGE'' - ''decisiun dal Tribunal federal, DTF''. <p>In ], Romansh is one of three official languages. According to the (art. 7), courts use the official language they consider most appropriate depending on the languages used or understood by the parties. In practice, this means that most opinions are issued in German as the most widely understood language. I recommend against citing anything in Romansh as almost nobody outside Grisons reads that language. Use one of the two other official languages, German or Italian, instead; as the most-used language, German is probably the most relevant. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:29, 7 October 2013 (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) | |||
| Thanks for the find, Standstein! That definitely obviates the need to purchase a Swiss, legal citation guide. | |||
| :] 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. | |||
| I'll definitely use that site to look up the proper Romansh abbreviations for the courts and reporters, but—even then—only for the laws of Grisons. (Parallel with German and Italian citations.) | |||
| :Source . It also has figures by county if you are interested. | |||
| :*p.494 38,498,572 acres, i.e. 60,154 square miles | |||
| :*p.497 10,674 parishes and parochial chapelries | |||
| :*Average 3,607 acres, i.e. 5.64 square miles ] (]) 02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you -- that's a starting point, at least! -- ] (]) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::But regionally variable: | |||
| Henceforth, my references to that canton's laws will no longer resemble Swiss cheese. :P | |||
| :::{{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.}} | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::] (]) 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.}} | |||
| = October 8 = | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::The point about urban parishes distorting the overall average is supported by ] for instance, that had a parish of only 3 acres (or two football pitches of 110 yards by 70 yards placed side by side). ] (]) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, that's great info -- ty! I can't seem to get a look at the content of the book. Does it say anything else about other regions? -- ] (]) 23:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The OCR book doesn't mention other regions. I have found where the figure of 10,674 came from: has a note that {{tq|Preliminary Observations ( p . 13. and 15. ) to the Popu-lation Returns in 1811 ; where the Parishes and Parochial Chapelries are stated at 10,674 .}} The text of page 112 says that {{tq|churches are contained in be-tween 10 , and 11,000 parishes † ; and probably after a due allowance for consolidations , & c . they constitute the Churches of about 10,000 Parochial Benefices}}, so the calculation on p.165 of the 1816 essay is based on around 10,000 parishes in England (and Wales) in 1800 (38,500,000 divided by 3,850). ] (]) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The primary source is and the table of parishes by county is on page xxix. ] (]) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you! -- ] (]) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Parishes, like political constituencies etc, were in theory decided by the number of inhabitants, not the area covered. What the average was at particular points, I don't know. No doubt it rose over recent centuries as the population expanded, but rural parishes generally did not. ] (]) 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::But whatever the population changes, the parish boundaries in England (whether urban or rural) remained largely fixed between the 12th and mid-19th centuries. ] (]) 13:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, I'm not asking because I thought parish boundaries had been drawn to equalize the geographic area covered or I wanted to know how those boundaries came about. I'm asking because I'm curious what would have been typical in terms of geographic area in order to better understand certain aspects of the society of the time. | |||
| ::For instance, how far (and thus how long) would people have to travel to get to their church? How far might they live from other people who attended the same church? How far would the rector/vicar/curate have to range to attend to his parishioners in their homes? | |||
| ::Questions like that. Does that make the reason for this particular inquiry make more sense? -- ] (]) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: had a similar question and the answer there suggested ]’s ''Churches and Churchmen in Medieval Europe'' (1999) . You may find the first chapter, '' Rural Ecclesiastical Institutions in England : The Search for their Origins'' interesting. ] (]) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the link! | |||
| ::::Fwiw, I'm not really seeing any answers to questions of actual geographic extent in that first chapter, mostly info on the "how they came to be" that, again, isn't really the focus of the question. Or maybe the info I'm looking for is in the pages that are omitted from the preview? | |||
| ::::The rest of the book is clearly focused on a much earlier period than I'm interested in (granted, parish boundaries may not have changed much between the start of the Reformation and the Georgian era, but culture, practices, and the relationship of most people to their church and parish certainly would have!) -- ] (]) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The chapter is relevant to how far people had to travel in the middle ages, which I can see is not the period you are interested in. ] (]) 21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, it looks to me as if the pages I need are probably among the unavailable ones, then. Oh well. Thank you for the suggestion regardless! -- ] (]) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :One last link, the introduction of which might be helpful, describing attempts to create new parishes for the growing population in the early 19th century (particularly pp. 19-20): | |||
| == Hypothetical US law question - Illegal spying? == | |||
| : | |||
| :] (]) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == When was the first bat mitzvah? == | |||
| I realize that this will likely vary by state but I have a hypothetical legal question regarding laws in the US. Note: I am not looking for legal advice. It's just a curiosity. | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| Imagine someone, I'll call them a snoop, finds a way to hide a video camera in someone else's house and they manage to record the homeowner selling drugs, beating their kids, or some other crime. I would think that if the tape were turned over to the police that the homeowner could be arrested for those crimes, correct? Even though the snoop that put the camera in the house did it without the homeowners permission or knowledge. I realize that the snoop would have cause to worry about the potential legal trouble of breaking in to the house, illegally spying on the homeowner, etc. but I'm not as concerned about trouble that they would be in. Though if you want to tell me about that as well, that would be welcome. Is there anywhere in the US where this video evidence could not be used to arrest and try the homeowner? <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the Supreme Court decided that it was going to take part of the Fourteenth Amendment out of context and ], this is presumably a nationwide issue, not a state-by-state one. ] (]) 03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Imposing" rights is a bit of an oxymoron. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Depends on the context, I read Nyttend to be saying one government telling another government what rights it must not trample which was one effect of the 14th Amendment. The recent case of ] reminded local governments that it wasn't about what rights they decided on locally but what one might describe as the imposition of the 2nd Amendment on the city of Chicago. | |||
| ::::States/localities can & do have even greater protections against say being filmed or audio recorded than simply the Bill of Rights or US statutes.] 07:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Imposing rights" is different; the point is that the Court imposed restrictions on the states and their subentities, e.g. municipalities, misusing a section that's basically meant to prevent the existence of state laws that discriminate by race. ] (]) 12:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Side issue, but as our incorporation article attests, the "misuse of one section" repaired an earlier misuse of the 14th amendment's original intent, understanding, and plain meaning - which ''was'' to incorporate. The restriction of the 14th amendment by the post Civil War Supreme Court was the true unwarranted imposition by the judicial over the legislative.] (]) 23:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Did that include conferring second amendment rights upon all citizens? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:56, 8 October 2013 (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) | |||
| ::It's a question of ], and the easy answer is, it's no good as condemnatory evidence if the ''police'' are in anyway involved in an illegal search. (If the evidence is disculpatory it will almost certainly be allowed.) If there's no standing law or precedent in a state, it will be up to the judge to decide. You can be sure they are going to weigh heavily against illegally obtained evidence. In a case like murder a judge might allow, say, the victims' cell phone recorded video to be admitted if he was killed and there was no other direct physical evidence, under, say, the ] exception, even if the victim didn't walk into the killers house with permission to be recording. A judge will exclude such evidence if he thinks the case can be proven without it in order to avoid grounds for an appeal. This is extremely speculative, case dependent, and as you say, relative to the state involved. ] (]) 03:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Parts from Google's translation of ]: | |||
| :::So how is that different from planting a camera <u>and</u> evidence in an innocent person's house? Seem like some kind of ] that could be inadmissable in court. ] (]) 11:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::As early as the early 19th century, in the early days of Reform Judaism, confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls began to be held in which their knowledge of the religion was tested, similar to that practiced among Christians. It spread to the more liberal circles of German Jewry, and by the middle of the century had also begun to be widespread among the Orthodox bourgeoisie. Rabbi Jacob Etlinger of Altona was forced by the community's regulations to participate in such an event in 1867, and published the sermon he had prepared for the purpose later. He emphasized that he was obligated to do so by law, and that Judaism did not recognize that the principles of the religion should be adopted in such a public declaration, since it is binding from birth. However, as part of his attempt to stop the Reform, he supported a kind of parallel procedure that was intended to take place exclusively outside the synagogue. | |||
| ::Planting false evidence is different from what was mentioned above. It would bring evidence tampering and perhaps perjury and other charges, not entrapment, which is a defense, and means the government officer enticed the accused to commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed. If evidence is not obvious and conclusive to the layman the prosecution and/or defense will hire expert witnesses to testify about it. Overseeing this process is one of the chief roles a judge plays. See ] for standards generally used in the US. ] (]) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| :To Dismas' original question: .] 02:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 = | |||
| So, if I'm understanding the comments thus far, the video would likely be thrown out and the homeowner would go unpunished because the video was obtained illegally even though the snoop did not do anything to encourage the homeowner to carry out the crime and thus entrap them. Seems odd but okay. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The overall is it depends; especially since many jurisdictions are only now starting to pass laws & set court precedence (back to μηδείς's point about admissibility--lots of disagreement between judges since there is no X v. Y to cite that went through all appeal levels & had legal journals ponder it for years) to catch up with smartphone & mini cams/mics. | |||
| :Aside from that, even with age old precedence & all the evidence admitted just because you go to trial doesn't mean the jury (or appeals court) will agree with the prosecution, so your "unpunished" comment could relate to most every crime. I could think of at least 5 "media" trials in the last few decades where the jury 'shocked the world' in spite of not having any of the complications in your question. ] 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century == | |||
| == Disturbing images in Revelation == | |||
| 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) | |||
| In the book of Revelation, what is the point behind all the disturbing images? Is Heaven supposed to be aversive or frightening? ] (]) 13:59, 8 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :The book itself was written as a letter intended to comfort Christians who were being persecuted. The core message is that God will eventually prevail and destroy the evil in the world. The images are primarily symbols that would have been well-understood by their audience. And as to them being "disturbing", that was the point. You don't get people's attention about good and evil by using images of hearts and flowers. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:08, 8 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :I thought the idea was that this is what those not raised up to heaven in the ] would face. Then we basically get hell on Earth for the rest of us. ] (]) 16:09, 8 October 2013 (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 == | |||
| :You asked "Is Heaven supposed to be aversive or frightening?", I think you're confusing this with sayings 'Heaven comes to Earth' & the like that usually refer to what happens long after what Revelation foretells. The book/"disturbing images" is more about the 'final battle' of 'good' & 'evil'/'saved' & 'unsaved', not Heaven but more about Hell's last offensive one could say.] 17:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Why did ] make the film ] after making the very popular and racist film ]? What did he want to convey? ] (]) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The account can also be interpreted to include a prolonged period of liberty, peace, prosperity, and health. Now, I will not claim to have a very ''usual'' interpretation of Christianity, but I would argue that something like can readily be interpreted to mean that the world powers will create a lasting peace in Syria (where the warring factions face one another across the Euphrates), put aside weapons of mass destruction, and begin implementing a world without oppression, war, poverty, or disease. I think such an interpretation of the Revelation makes a lot more sense than the usual lugubrious reading, because how do you notice all the disasters and tribulations of the end times in a world that staggers from one set of concentration camps and droughts and oppressive governments to the next? Why should any parent, let alone a wise God, reward children who stage a "nuclear apocalypse" with a brand new world before demanding they learn how to use the one they have? But what makes a lot of sense is that if you can create a world where people do everything as best as fallible mortals can, sooner or later it will go to crap again, because nothing in this world lasts forever. And when that happens, you'll have something you never had before: a crime without an excuse, a First Cause of evil in the world. I mean, for all I know even Hitler had some Jewish kid beat him up and take his lunch money when he was a boy. Create the best possible world, and you "drain the lake to catch the fish". Satan is revealed from his hiding. ] (]) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (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. --] 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Number of nonreligious people who study the Bible == | |||
| ::<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 == | |||
| Are there nonreligious people who study the Bible academically and rigorously and who do not have a religious background/affiliation since birth? Are there nonreligious people who have gotten inspired or enlightened by the Bible and God's actions and words? ] (]) 14:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :There are plenty of people who study it academically and historically as a work of literature. Whether ones believes in it from a religious perspective or not, it's a singularly important book in world history so it will be studied by anyone interested in that kind of thing. ] (]) 14:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As for the second part of your question, we have an article on ]. - ] ] 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. I am sure there are people who have taken away useful ideas from the Bible, even if they don't embrace the religious aspect. You don't have to accept the alleged divine origin of the ], for instance, in order to believe that it's a bad idea to be jealous of people, or to kill them. - ] ] 14:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hypothetically, anything is possible. Now, can you actually list some nonreligious or nontheistic people who become inspired by the biblical narratives and behave in the world to imitate the God in the Bible? ] (]) 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<small>? And I'm saying this as a Catholic. It feels a bit like you are fishing for something with this question. ] (]) 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::<small>Hence the term "]". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :::::::<small>Holy crap, that's actually a thing?!? I always got mildly annoyed when I saw the word "trolling" in a fishing context, as I just thought people were misspelling ] due to having seen the other word on message boards and such (where I thought it had come about exclusively due to its practitioners being mendacious little thugs who ambush threads and then go back to ]). Learn something new every day! <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> <small>17:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :::::::: <small> You certainly do learn something new every day. You've been on WP since 2007, and been hanging around the Ref Desks since 2010, but never came across the terminology of internet trolling until now? That is very surprising indeed. You even have a mini-essay on your user page, "On the Harms of Anti-Vandal Zealotry". That is not in any way a put down, just an expression of my surprise. But then, I'm constantly hearing about popular singers who've been "taking the world by storm" for years, sold umpteen million albums, had a gazillion squared utubular hits and so on, but their name meant absolutely nothing to me. Literally nothing. It all depends on the circles in which one moves. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 18:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :::::::::{{small|The ''fishing'' term, not the internet term necessarily. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::::::<small>Hah, forgive my imprecision. Bugs has it right: I didn't know "trolling" is a real means of fishing for actual fish, and not just something that assholes do on the internet. I had thought it was '''exclusively''' a ] of ], not a description of ]. The practice of "trolling" message boards I've been aware of for quite some time, alas. Only the etymology and the technique performed on actual boats escaped me. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::Take a look at ] and remove those that also appear in ] will give you those who don't believe in god but also believe in not murdering people. ] (]) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Bible has plenty of passages which not only doesn't forbid murder, but actively encourages it. . So atheistic murderers could in theory have been inspired by the Bible. --] (]) 16:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The uncanniness of the ] would be a specific subclass of this. --] 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You may find ] interesting. ] (]) 16:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Yearbooks == | ||
| 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) | |||
| Why no woman has been elected as US president? --] (]) 15:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably for similar reasons that only about a few dozen have been elected national leaders throughout the world and then only in the last <s>50</s><s>40</s> 54 years. It might be even more curious why no woman has ever won a major US party nomination for president, though the three that I'm aware of winning VP nods all had their tickets lose in the general.] 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) ] has a list. Why have none been successfully elected is due to the electoral system of the United States which heavily favors a fight between two parties to gain ] votes. This leaves many minor parties with next to no chance of getting their candidate elected. For example, in the 2012 election the ] nominated ] as their presidential candidate, the party gained 468,907 votes (~0.36%) but that got them zero out of 538 Electoral College votes. When women have sought the Democrat or Republican party nomination, then have lost out to male candidates. In the 2008 election ] only narrowly lost out to Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination. ] (]) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because none have received a majority in the Electoral College. ] (]) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Market diamond, what happened in 1973? Women have been getting to be top dog ] or ]. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 17:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever. --] 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) Wasn't the question "elected", not the few appointed or co-acting etc. of non-"free world" nations? Your 2nd list does confirm my memory that the first was in the 60s so I take back my strike should be 50(4) not 40, good find there.] 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because none have received a majority in the Electoral College? ] (]) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even with a majority of the Electoral College it doesn't always elect you: ]. <small>Am I seeing double ;)</small>] 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jackson had the plurality, not the majority. As regards the OP's question, keep in mind that very few women have sought the office in the first place. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ahh, your right Baseball Bugs. Jackson's writings tend to gloss over that with some interesting hyperbole.] 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The gender of a president is irrelevant anyway, any president should try to do the best for all his citizens, of both genders. A woman can be as great or as awful a president as a man. --] (]) 21:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just like the race of a president ''should be'' irrelevant. There are a lot of things that "should be" irrelevant, yet somehow are seen as relevant. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed, however it's telling to see the biggest demo shifts between Kerry 2004 & Obama 2008 .] 02:34, 9 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :In addition to the factors mentioned above: | |||
| :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) | |||
| :* Women are significantly underrepresented in the offices from which US Presidential (and VP) candidates are typically chosen from: ], ], ], ], and senior business or military positions. So the pool of plausible women candidates meeting the job experience expectation has been, and still is, relatively shallow. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :* Historically a significant fraction of US voters have been unwilling to vote for any women candidate for president. Here is Gallup data from (by 2012 the number had gone up %; by comparison, the number for male candidates, though not polled, would have been in the high nineties at all times). | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :] (]) 23:44, 8 October 2013 (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 = | |||
| == Salaama Hut in Toronto == | |||
| == Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source? == | |||
| In the Somali diaspora article, there is a picture of a restaurant in Toronto. Where is that in Toronto, I mean is it in North York or Etobicoke? Or also, what is the address? Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :. ] (]) 18:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I once read in a ] article (or it might have been in one of his short columns) that the ] or one of its departments used "Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta" as a motto, but it turned out this was completely (if unintentionally, at least on Will's part) made up. Does anyone else remember George Will making that claim? Regardless, has anyone any idea how George Will may have mis-heard or mis-remembered it? (I could never believe that he intentionally made it up.) Anyway, does anyone know the source of the phrase, or at least an earliest source. (Obviously it may have occurred to several people independently.) The earliest I've found on Google is a 2007 article in the MIT Technology Review. Anything earlier? ] (]) 04:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Australia census by ethnicity and religions and by cities and divisions in the federal government == | |||
| : 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)? == | |||
| Is there a website or part of the Australian Government website that gives you the access to census data on which cities in Australia has the largest population of Bangladeshis or Muslims and which divisions in the federal government has the largest population of Bangladeshis and Muslims like UK census website? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :The Australian Census site kept giving me "Ancestry" but just in general terms from my searches. If you put in 'Australian Census Banglaeshis' to Google I did it isn't at the census page but the 'immi.gov.au' site.] 18:50, 8 October 2013 (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". | |||
| :No, you can't. Chiefly because the ] is not an organ of the government of the United Kingdom and uses different statistical and reporting criteria. Using immigration data as a proxy won't get you self-identified ancestry data like census will. I'm sorry, but you'll have to face the fact that Australian census data on ethnicity does not map neatly onto your personal view of ethnicity. Moreover, "divisions" in the Australian context often refers to a bureaucratic structure, and I strongly doubt that Government is going to provide ethnic or religious data on its employees in that way. ] (]) 20:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I read it as OP asking if the Australian website displays data in a way that is like the one in the UK, not if the UK site gives Australia data or if the two are connected, though I'm seeing what you mean Fifelfoo as far as ethnicity in my searches on the Australian Census sites. Perhaps OP could re-phrase so there is no doubt.] 21:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Australian government collects Australian data in an '''Australian manner.''' This manner will be fundamentally different to the '''manner''' in which the UK government collects data. Particularly as there isn't an international standard on ethnic data, as opposed, to for example, terminal level of education. Thus, OP will '''never''' be able to display data on an Australian website in the way in which data displays on a UK website because the '''structures of the data sets are ].''' ] (]) 21:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The request was for OP. Bringing up "education" & "terminal" after I commended you & we await OP's response to my link: Inspiring! '''Bolding''' too!] 01:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I usually declare myself to be Australian on the census. That option is available to everybody in the census, no matter what their ancestry. That makes drawing conclusion on anything but self identification meaningless. ] (]) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Same in the U.S. HiLo48, yet so many conclusions keep being drawn.] 01:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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? | |||
| == How easy is it to get a low paying job? == | |||
| Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play: | |||
| I've always believed that someone can find a job without too much difficulty if they are willing to accept a low wage, but I realize now that I have no facts to back this opinion up (or disprove it for that matter). Where can I find statistics on the time it typically takes for someone to find a minimum wage job, for example? Thanks. ] (]) 20:19, 8 October 2013 (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. | |||
| :That will depend on several factors: the specific work(s) considered, unemployment rate, the expertise of the worker in the work, other personal information that may benefit or harm the worker's chances with the employer, the distance that the worker is willing to commute to work, etc. --] (]) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (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) | |||
| :{{ec}}I'd suggest Ehrenreich's ] or Lowenstein's ] here. Labour market statistics analysis won't tell you anything about difficulty, acceptance, willingness, finding, what a job is, lowness of wage: labour market statistics incorporate their assumptions in their reporting requirements. Only discursive work will get you there. There's a lot of half-decent industrial sociology on ] which is immediately relevant, in particular some studies claims about a ] ought to be useful. By the way, you'd want to look at ] and ] alongside ]. In a great deal of cases (per Lowenstein's discursive reporting) workers refuse shit work and see "willingness" as a sickening forced consent. ] (]) 20:49, 8 October 2013 (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." | |||
| :If a job is low paying, it implies automatically that lots of people are willing to do it, otherwise, the salary would go up. | |||
| The reason doesn't matter, maybe they don't have other marketable skills, but that's irrelevant when it comes down to define a market price. Low price implies high offer. The 'easiest' way of finding a job is learning skills. Even simple qualifications like commercial driver's license could improve dramatically your situation. ] (]) 23:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :"Low price implies high offer" completely ignores the demand side of the situation. If demand for a product or service goes down, the price normally goes down as well. See ]. --] (]) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (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) | |||
| ::OK, low price for something implies a high'''er''' supply than demand. It doesn't matter if someone thinks it's high, the only thing that's important is that it is higher in comparison to the demand, for whatever reason. But yes, the logic is the same: there are lots of candidates trying to obtain a low paying job. ] (]) 00:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::At this period "Sir" (and "Lady") could still be used as a vague title for people of some status, without really implying they had a knighthood. ] (]) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Identically /hjuːm/ (HYOOM), to be clear. ] ] 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 = | |||
| :::Some years ago I worked in the local vineyards for six months. Locale was terrific, the company was great, but the pay was crap. To get the job I had to attend a trial day where I was obviously assessed for work ethic and potential to learn the necessary skills quickly enough. (Bad pruning can really destroy a vineyard.) Many didn't pass that test. So, poorly paying job, but not all that easy to get. ] (]) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about perks? Did you get any free samples? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, there were some fringe benefits of that kind. Did add to the pleasures of the job. Hic. ] (]) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Mike Johnson == | |||
| == Entering a hotel via the window == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I guess this could be construed as legal advice, as it pertains to a situation which actually occurred to me, however the situation has passed and I am not actually asking for advice, rather looking to satisfy my curiosity. I recently stayed in a small French hotel, where we were given a key which opened both the front door and the room we were staying in. Being outside tourist season we were the only guests. Returning late one night we found that the key failed to open the front door (it later transpired that the door had been deadlocked from the inside by mistake before the owners left via the back door). One of the options we considered before finally waking the owners up by furiously knocking on the door to their nearby house was to check for an unsecured ground floor window and enter via that. Is there any law which prohibits this? Feel free to choose your jurisdiction - I'm not specifically interested in French law. My view was that as we had permission to be in the hotel, any means of entry which wouldn't cause damage would be fair game. My friend remained less convinced. ]<small> (] | ])</small> 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hard telling about the laws in various places, but read what happened to ] when he had to break into ''his own house''. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :At a certain point it only matters if the "victim" or an officer chooses to report or enforce it. Misplaced Pages has a whole article (that could use expanding) with several links at ], most of us would be in custody if they went strictly by the book--& forgot about statute of limitations.] 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Being accidentally locked out of a rented room is a ]. ] is a ]. You are not entitled to commit a crime to rectify a tort under ]. ] is ]. ]. ] (]) 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That begs the question of whether your intent was unlawful. A locksmith picks a lock, but it is legal when he does so with the owner's permission. The guest at a hotel is entitled to open the window, to be on the inside, to be on the outside; the only question is whether there is some written or unwritten rule prohibiting him from clambering through it. ] (]) 03:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Intent to redress a tort has nothing to do with excusing breaking and entering; it is you who is begging the question--the OP said nothing about having permission; and a locksmith entering with an owner's permission is a locksmith entering ''with an owner's permission.'' Next you'll be giving us medical advice, Wnt, and suggesting knocking a hole in the wall is okay if they have your credit card on file for a damage deposit? ] (]) 03:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<small>As someone who's been witnessed "knocking a hole in the wall", now I am concerned & oh yeah, the wall provoked me!] 03:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::Given the premise that the renter is ''accidentally'' locked out, he has permission to be inside. The owner could walk by and see him looking out the open window from the inside, and see nothing wrong with the world. He could walk by and see the renter sitting with one leg outside the window, and might look at him askance because it's not normal use, but is it prohibited? Which brings us right to the "breaking" and entering scenario, because the legal use of the term doesn't actually mean the renter bashed in the window. ] (]) 03:39, 9 October 2013 (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. ] (]) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == German Argentinians in Europe == | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| Reading ], I am surprised that there is no discussion of German Argentinians migrating to Europe. | |||
| ::: He may also have just come from, or be shortly going to, some (not necessarily religious) event held in a synagogue, where he would wear it for courtesy. I would do the same, and have my (non-Jewish) grandfather's kippah, which he wore for this purpose not infrequently, having many Jewish friends. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I know that, due to the laws on ] and ], many ]s and ]s took advantage to migrate to Europe during the ] and after the ] crisis. | |||
| Was it so with German Argentinians? | |||
| Why (not)? | |||
| --] (]) 22:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I assume you mis-spoke: ''to show his support for ... anti-semitism''. ] (]) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Are ] numbers in the public domain? == | |||
| :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 |
Thanks, all! Much appreciated! ] (]) 02:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol == | |||
| :Not every information can be protected by copyright, not everything can be an intangible asset, since not every piece information is a creative work. Therefore, sometimes it's meaningless to ask if something is public domain or not. ] (]) 23:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Who was Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol? There is only one reference online ("", 1869), and that has no further details. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Supposing one could copyright an ISBN number, what would be the point? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:35, 9 October 2013 (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) | |||
| = October 9 = | |||
| ::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 = | |||
| == Women and prostitution == | |||
| {{hat|]. If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.}} | |||
| I was reading the following article, because I wanted to know why women would enter the field of prostitution, given the awful working conditions and social standing. | |||
| * Cobbina, J. E., & Oselin, S. S. (2011). It's Not Only for the Money: An Analysis of Adolescent versus Adult Entry into Street Prostitution. Sociological Inquiry, 81(3), 310-332. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2011.00375.x | |||
| == London Milkman photo == | |||
| This line strikes me as intriguing: "Many girls who have experienced childhood abuse find that the best available means of escape from violence is to rely on survival strategies—such as running away from home, drug use, and illegal street work—that thereby. constitute crimes according to the ‘‘justice’’ system (Gilfis 1992; Owen and Bloom 1995). Other scholars contend criminal activity among battered women is a by-product of their emotional attachment to criminally involved boyfriends or spouses (Mullins and Wright 2003; Richie 1996)." | |||
| 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) | |||
| If that's the typical story for any woman in prostitution, then that really explains why some women feel compelled to perform such self-debasing work. The girls probably don't really have a choice in their homes, all filled with domestic violence, and want to seek an escape. So, they run away from home, so that they may be free. They experiment with drugs in the inner cities and probably like the experience, escaping the suffering. Now the drugs may require money, so along with the fact that they don't have parental support, the teens have to work in illegal street work, prostituting themselves. From this, I am beginning to understand why these girls can't get real jobs, like burger flipping or housekeeping. In many professions, employers require social security number. The girls may be too young to even know their social security number, and they may be afraid to seek the police. So, any job in the inner cities would do, and that includes prostituting work. | |||
| :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) | |||
| My question is, '''what have societies done in the past to help combat this issue -- to help these girls get better jobs and stay away from prostitution, which is not only self-debasing but also dangerous (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, starvation due to low wages, rape, abuse)?''' ] (]) 03:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "] Archive", which might mean it was in ]. ] ] 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood. ] might assist in answering this, also ] had this as a running concern on the old ''Love Line'' shows something to the effect that women in 'the industry' always seem to have either bad or absent fathers.] 03:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. ] (]) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :::You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? ] ] 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Misplaced Pages does not entertain soapboxing or requests for debate or advice. It is not our place to assume that prostitution is good and provide legal advice or to assume the Victorian-Liberal viewpoint that women are victims and need our legal or counseling assistance. We do not advise readers not to seek divorce. Please seek another forum. ] (]) 03:56, 9 October 2013 (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) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| == Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at ], a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later ] was the United Provinces, ] the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. ] (]) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that ] was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. ] (]) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as ], that's for sure! ] (]) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This general region was originally part of ] aka ], possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, ]'s ''Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country'' (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) ] (]) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver ], whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country <small> was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --] (]) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] | |||
| :In Caesar's '']'', the Belgians ('']'') were separated from the Germans ('']'') by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands. --] 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 == | |||
| 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> | |||
| :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) | |||
| = 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. ] (]) 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? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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)? | |||
| ] (]) 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| = 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. ] (]) 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) | |||
| == 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. - ] | ] 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/). - ] | ] 05:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:45, 25 December 2024
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
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)
- 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)
- 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
lessmore 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)
- "Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be Mesne lords. 194.73.48.66 (talk) 14:25, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 thatchurches 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
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)
- For not tolerating his racism? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Precisely, Lambian. Here is Johnson's official statement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It may have been a Hanukkah reception. --Lambiam 16:50, 22 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 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)
- It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 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)
- a lot of searches suggest it was the Daily Mail. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
_01.jpg)
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)
- 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)
- 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: