Revision as of 02:33, 22 October 2014 editJayron32 (talk | contribs)105,509 edits →Question about Iliad and Odyssey: reply.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:43, 28 December 2024 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,197 edits →London Milkman photo: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
</noinclude> | |||
]</noinclude> | |||
= |
= December 13 = | ||
== economics: coffee prices question == | |||
== Why are horoscopes drawn backwards? == | |||
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) | |||
Why is it northern ecliptic down? If you search for one that's not rising sign right that is <small>Which is also backwards (the upper chart is below the horizon).</small> | |||
I ''know'' where the Sun and evening sky is because of the date. That's more information and less indirect than forcing me to find one of the circa 8 sign symbols I know or the Sun so I know how much to turn the chart. Then the planet symbols are upside down, Pluto's looks more like Uranus's than Pluto's and Uranus's looks like an asteroid's, the asteroid(s)'s confuse further till I finally memorized the idiosyncratic Uranus/Pluto symbols just to know every object I want by sight. They have too much stuff cluttering everything (asteroid(s) and ] thereof, aspects with points of the lunar orbit, aspects like ], ] for more than moon phases, ] or worse (who cares!), angles so crooked they don't resemble what they're supposed to be anymore (too much latitude for offness)). Sometimes I want to see if the planets are making any interesting shapes and this annoys me. Astrology charts put lines though, making any aesthetic and very easy to see. ] (]) 03:13, 17 October 2014 (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 | |||
*I hope I am understanding your question. Celestial maps are drawn looking upward at the sky from below. If you hold the map above your head the cardinal points will match reality, but if you put the map on a table and look down on it, if N & S are properly oriented, E & W will appear reversed. ] (]) 03:54, 17 October 2014 (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 == | |||
**That confused me till middle school. What I meant is why is Aries to the left and therefore the southern celestial hemisphere up? See www.chaosastrology.net/astroform/chartwheel.cfm (put none under house), planetwatcher.com, the Astrological Charts app or Aquarius2go app (turn house off) (I thought that the rising sign was on the right where it shouldn't be. Oops. Astrologers ''did'' get that right.) Why Aries is Cancer down, Capricorn/Sagittarius up, and Libra/Virgo right on more useful (to non -astrologers) sign-based charts? ] (]) 07:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:If you don't get any good answers here (and given the subject matter I suspect you won't), I can recommend an astrologer who is very good at answering questions like this, if you want to put a message on my Talk page and we'll take it from there. --] (]) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi friends. The article for ] in the UK refers to an "order of precedence for abbots in Parliament". (Sourced to an encyclopedia, which uses the wording "The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's"). Did a ranking/order of precedence exist and if yes where can it be found? Presumably this would predate the dissolution of monasteries in england. Thanks.] (]) 06:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Is a nurse allowed to date a (former) patient's child? == | |||
: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; | |||
New York City, say. ] (]) 20:00, 17 October 2014 (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 | |||
:No ''law'' against it. Don't know if it violates professional '''ethics''' standards (but it probably depends on the specific situation.) ] (]) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::"Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be ]s. ] (]) 14:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::"Mean lords" looks like an alternative spelling that was used in the 19th century, so it was probably a correct spelling in 1842. ] (]) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you everyone very much for your time and research, truly appreciated. all the best,] (]) 23:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Are the proposed Trump tariffs a regressive tax in disguise? == | |||
:Policies about dating between professionals (including medical professionals, educators, lawyers, etc.) and their clients are subject usually to the policies of the employer in question. The nurse would need to refer to their specific employer's policy on the matter. There are no universal rules, and it is under the realm of employee conduct rules (developed by the employer, professional organization, union, or other similar body) and is not a matter of civil law. Literally, the only people who can answer this question are the employers of the nurse. If the nurse in question is concerned, they need to speak to their employer, or look through their employer's conduct policy for the relevant guidelines. --]''''']''''' 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Absolutely. At the very least, a reasonable time interval would need to pass. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::On the contrary, professions such as attorneys have codes of conduct which specify the limits of professional and personal relationship overlap, which have the force of law, and government employees are often subject to anti-nepotism rules. The US medical profession in general has no specific codes of conduct which would prevent a caregiver from dating the child of a patient, and I have personal experience that such situations are rare but not generally a source of concern for former patients at all. ] (]) 18:49, 18 October 2014 (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) | |||
== Albert Pearse == | |||
: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 == | |||
I am trying to research a missionary in Raiatea by the name of Albert Pearse. mentions that all LMS missionaries left the Leeward Islands by 1890, but it doesn't really speak of Pearse own personal fate. Also can anybody help me find other names of missionaries who preached in the Leeward Islands during this waning decade of the 1880s. Just to specify I am not interested in missionaries in Tahiti or before this period. --] (]) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: is Pearse's 1911 obituary with a short biography.--] (]) 12:07, 18 October 2014 (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. | |||
== Comparison: Movie '300' with 'Da vinchi code' Book == | |||
He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS. | |||
Who watched the movie '300'. Is this movie similar to 'Da vincihi code', e.g., in the movie '300', they assume that the viewer will have the basic understanding of the past histories, about the 'Gods' and 'oracles', they just go through with the primary story/topic through the 'Gods' and 'oracles' e.g., Sparta guy and so on... I have not read the 'Da vinchi code' I have a basic understanding... Q: Does the 'Da vinchi code' and '300' possess a similar layout? | |||
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) | |||
Also, How much can you lie in a fictional story? -- (] (]) 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
:] Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start | |||
:Spend your ''thinking time'' in understanding the real world and not allow fiction writers who can wast your time, to wast your time. Nor question their motives (they want to sell book, not illuminate the reader). Why discuss this? Others may just love the 'Da vincihi code', but they can discuss this this on blogs. WP is not the right place. Who cares about the layout or lies that authors use to draw in their readership? --] (]) 00:26, 18 October 2014 (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 = | |||
:You can lie as much as you want in a story which you state to be fiction. If you claim it's a true story and then lie, that could get you in trouble. They usually get around this by saying it's "(fiction) based on a true story". Unfortunately, mixing truth and fiction goes back at least to ]. Do'oh ! ] (]) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception == | |||
::Calling "bullshit" on "If you claim it's a true story and then lie, that could get you in trouble" There are lots of works of fiction which claim "This is based on a true story" which are actually not at all. See ], which states, unequivocally at the beginning "This is a true story, these events happened in Minnesota in 1987" While the Coen brothers had a few disparate murder cases that they borrowed some ideas from (and really, every work of fiction borrows "ideas" from real life at some point), Fargo's opening disclaimer of truth is completely not true. And no one got in trouble for that. --]''''']''''' 01:05, 19 October 2014 (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) | |||
:::It didn't get the Coen Brothers in trouble, but it "could" get you in trouble. Like, for instance, if I were to publish my book "CJK5H" with a "this really happened" claim in the front, in some countries I could be sued (successfully) for libel. ] (]) 02:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Various maneuverings in the middle ages (including the infamous Fourth Crusade) certainly gave many Byzantines a negative view of western Catholics, so that toward the end some frankly preferred conquest by Muslims to a Christian alliance which would involve Byzantine religious and political subordination to the European West (see discussion at ]). But the Byzantines generally considered themselves to be the real Romans, and called themselves "Romaioi" much more often than they called themselves Greek (of course, "Byzantine" is a later retroactive term). ] (]) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Only if there was a real person so libeled. You can't be sued for libel if no real person is told falsehoods about. --]''''']''''' 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Or if the real person is dead. Or if the lie is so preposterous you can convince a lawyer to convince a judge that a "reasonable person" shouldn't believe it was serious. Or if you file with broadcast regulators as an entertainment ''and'' news channel. Or if you pay the person you libel a proportionately tiny amount to stay away from court and never speak of this again. Or if the person has an "unfortunate accident". Or if he somehow comes to believe he or his family may have "unfortunate accidents". | |||
: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) | |||
:::::What I mean is, ] ran the ] from his mother's ] while ] watched and the ] wiped. ] ] 21:19, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::In Ottoman Turkish, the term {{large|]}} (''Rum''), ultimately derived from Latin ''Roma'', was used to designate the Byzantine Empire, or, as a geographic term, its former lands. Fun fact: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, ] and his successors claimed the title of ], with the Ottoman Empire being the successor of the ]. IMO this claim has merit; Mehmet II was the first ruler of yet another dynasty, but rather than replacing the existing Byzantine administrative apparatus, he simply continued its use for the empire he had become the ruler of. If you recognize the claim, the ] is today's successor of the Roman Kingdom. --] 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The Ottomans basically continued the Byzantine tax-collection system, for a while. ] (]) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Foreign Presidents/Heads of State CURRENTLY Buried in the USA == | |||
::::::Ammm, I'm killing my fictional character, probably will aware readers in the beginning or take the journey of life to his death bed. -- (] (]) 00:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) | |||
:Uhm. Thinks to myself.... How can politicians speak lies whilst claiming it to be the truth and get away with it? (you may well ask how I know them to be lying … simple, I can see their lips moving). (think you're contributing ''Do'oh'' to the wrong Homer - Ho! Ho!) --] (]) 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
For example, In Woodlawn Cemetery in Miami, FL, there are two Cuban presidents and a Nicaraguan president. | |||
Are there any other foreign presidents, heads of state, that are buried in the USA? ] (]) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hence the quote attributed to Mark Twain, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." So there you are. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:As far as I know, all 4 of the presidents of the ] are buried in Texas, which is currently in the US. ] (]) 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Speaking of reality, they're spelled ] and ]. Speaking of lying, ]. Here's a ] ] ] 10:10, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:::{{small|Hush, don't clue him in.}} Wasn't it Daniel Burnham who said "Make no small lies"? That 1943 ''Titanic'' sounds pretty funny. Propaganda media usually do, after some passage of time. The funniest thing is Goebbels having second thoughts about it, as it might give the German public ideas. What's the German equivalent of "D'oh!"? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Here's the Honestly. ] ] 12:05, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::] was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though. | |||
::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) | |||
{{P|grin}} Thanks {{U|StuRat}}. | |||
::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) | |||
{{U|InedibleHulk}}..lol. | |||
: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) | |||
Seriously guys, has anyone seen the movie and or read the book or not? I need to know whether the layouts are similar or not, because I only seen ‘300’ and I read a bit of ‘Da vinchi code’ from Misplaced Pages… | |||
: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) | |||
Clarify the following as well please, | |||
= December 17 = | |||
Lie Test 01: Can I get away with, by saying 'Alien' or 'Predator' was the 'Messiah' of 'UFO' Religion and the other was the 'False Messiah'? -- (] (]) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
:Absolutely not (to both questions). They kill people, and neither even pretends to be doing it for our own good. Big Lies need '''''' Little people have those now, with Twitter and whatnot, but when everyone's speaking, they become relatively quiet. You're certainly free to try, though. ] ] 18:57, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::You're funny {{U|InedibleHulk}}..lol. I won't try it if you think its a risk. I have to come up with something else... Thanks a lot! -- (] (]) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
== Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800 == | |||
:No, they don't have the same 'layout'. 300 is presented as an exaggerated account given by a storyteller, and explores how events become myths. ] presents itself as being a fictional story included purportedly true facts about history and society, which are fairly universally hilariously wrong. ] (]) 11:22, 19 October 2014 (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) | |||
] -- (] (]) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
{{Resolved}} | |||
:Why would that make you sad? It demonstrates that you can lie as much as you want, as blatantly as you want, as long as what you're lying about is outside most people's everyday lives and would require a basic google search for them to check, and people will still take your fictional story as an accurate guide to just about anything, with no negative consequences for you. Just don't lie about real people with access to more expensive lawyers than you. ] (]) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::This cheered me up a bit. I kind of don't lie, I don't like lying... As long as I can get away by saying fictional and follow your and {{U|InedibleHulk}} guideline, I guess, I'll be okay. | |||
::<del>Another thing, I know this is suppose to be 'logic' but still asking for assurance: I can get away by saying it was a 'fictional' story to God after death right? Fairy tale stuff and so on? He won't say that I was giving false hopes/dreams/beliefs and so on, right? I know you are not God, I'm just wondering.</del> -- (] (]) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (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) | |||
:You know what would cheer you up? Googling "bs viral site:cracked.com". Once you get past the first couple pages of results, you'll see bullshit extends to every corner of the known universe, not just Facebook and movies (but mostly there). ] ] 18:41, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::<small>And yes, the universe has corners. Two of them. ] ] 18:42, ], ] (UTC) </small> | |||
:::I'll check it up once I become free. I assume it not required/related to the fictional topic. In regards to corners of the universe. Do you mean 'multiverses' or the 'Big Bang' theory (starting point to the end ever ending point)? -- (] (]) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
::::No, it's just a series of list articles about the sorts of stories that catch on because people don't factcheck. As for the corners of the universe, you'll have to see them. Can't be explained in words or diagrams. ] ] 16:13, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:::::I read the articles I mentioned, I just wanted to clarify if this is what you mean. I'll check it out soon. Thanks. -- (] (]) 00:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
::::::I meant you'll have to see the corners, not the articles. Basically just meant to make people imagine a room with two corners. Shouldn't think too hard about it. It was in small type, after all. Dust in the wind. That sort of thing. ] ] 14:38, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:] As a start the mean area of a parish in England and Wales in around 1832 seems to have been around 5.6 square miles. | |||
= October 18 = | |||
: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: | |||
== Cavalry == | |||
:::{{xt|By the early nineteenth century the north-west of England, including the expanding cities of Manchester and Liverpool, had just over 150 parishes, each of them covering an average of almost 12,000 acres, whereas the more rural east of the country had more than 1,600 parishes, each with an average size of approximately 2,000 acres.}} | |||
::: | |||
:::] (]) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{xt|On the contrary , in England , which contains 38,500,000 statute acres, the parishes or ]s comprehend about 3,850 acres the average; and if similar allowance be made for those livings in cities and towns , perhaps about 4,000.}} | |||
I have just been watching a WW1 film about cavalry, and I was wondering, is there an army in the world which still uses troops mounted on horses? I know they were still used in WW2 (the German army actually had more horses than tanks, despite the image of ] that we have). When (if) were horses 'phased out' in western armies for front-line combat? To repeat my main question, does anyone still use them? <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: | |||
::::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): | |||
:This is one of those "proving a negative" type questions that's difficult to answer with certainty, but the answer is ALMOST certainly not. I know most about the ]. Regiments with the name still exist, but they became mechanised and did away with the last of their horses (apart from for ceremonial purposes) around the time of WWII. ] (]) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
:] (]) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== When was the first bat mitzvah? == | |||
::], ]. The British army is supposed to have more horses than tanks or helicopters, and reputed to be the last army in the world that is trained to perform a full cavalry charge at the gallop. The ] (1982) was the last time British cavalrymen died in full armour since the ]. ] (]) 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
] has a short history section, all of which is about bar mitzvah. When was the first bat mitzvah? What is its history? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Misplaced Pages has an article about everything - try ] which cites several recent examples. A bit further up the page it says that the British Army has been fully mechanised since 1942 - (excluding ceremonial use referred to above); the last British horsed cavalry regiment was operating in the hills of Palestine I believe. ] (]) 09:17, 18 October 2014 (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) | |||
::::Not only does the US army still use horses for operations in rough terrain, but . Google is your friend. ] (]) 09:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Parts from Google's translation of ]: | |||
::::::That was the last time, Also says the Russians later used their cavalry in the South Ossetia War. ] ] 16:28, ], ] (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. | |||
:::::Although to qualify that a little, these are really ] rather than cavalry in the traditional sense, but they do qualify as "troops mounted on horses" mentioned in KageTora's original question. ] (]) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (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. | |||
::::::Yes, I purposefully didn't make a distinction between mounted infantry and actual cavalry. Thanks for the responses. Coincidentally, and quite bizarrely, the first answer mentioned the Australian Light Horse. That was actually the film I had been watching (bit of a B-movie, but anyway). | |||
::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. | |||
::::::: That's '']'' for those interested. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 22:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::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 = | |||
:Until a few years ago the ] had a light infantry battalion (12 South African Infantry Battalion) that used a mix of horses and motorcycles for mobility. They were however mounted infantry rather than cavalry as they dismounted when in contact with the enemy and fought on foot. Although the battalion has been disbanded the mounted infantry capability has been retained in the form of the "SA Army Specialised Infantry Capability" unit which also provides and trains dogs and their handlers for the Army. ] (]) 08:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century == | |||
{{Resolved}} | |||
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) | |||
== Historical name == | |||
:I'm not aware of any occuring without being foreseable a set of conditions such as the perspective of a minimal equal representation both in the judiciary and law enforcement. Those seem to be dependent on technological progress, maybe particularly law enforcement although the judiciary sometimes heavily relies on recording capabilities. Unfortunately ] is not very explicitly illustrating the genesis of its sociological dynamics. --] (]) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Before universal male suffrage became the norm in the 19th century, also male ]s did not pull significant political weight, at least in Western society, so any feminist "victories" before then can only have been minor improvements in women's rights in general. --] 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Changes regarding divorce, property rights of women, protections against sexual assault or men's mistreatment of women could have have been significant, right? (Though I don't know what those changes were) ] (]) 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't think many of those were widely, significantly changed prior to the 18th century, though the World is large and diverse, and history is long, so it's difficult to generalise. See ]. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 11:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In the English monarchy, when ] died in 1135 with no living male legitimate child, ] followed over whether ] or ] should inherit the throne. (It was settled by ].) But in 1553 when ] died, ] inherited the throne and those who objected did it on religious grounds and not because she was a woman: in fact there was an attempt to place ] on the throne instead. --] (]) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
What is the origin of the name of the city Manassas in the state of Virginia? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::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 == | |||
:''One mountain gap, where Interstate 66 crosses the Blue Ridge, bears an Indian name -- Manassas. A historical marker at the gap notes that it might have been named for "a local Jewish innkeeper" with the biblical name Manasseh. But there would have been no one to come to the inn when the name Manassas first appeared -- on surveyor John Warner's 1737 area map. The area was not settled until a decade later.'' | |||
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) | |||
:''I tend to believe that the name Manassas relates to Massanutten Mountain, the prominent range of the Appalachians to the west, quite visible from Manassas Gap. Massanutten may, in an Indian language, mean peaked mountain, locally pronounced in two syllables, "peak-id."'' | |||
: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) | |||
:''Other Indian lore says Massanutten stands for three tops, as the mountain has three distinct summits; old field, a reference to former fields on its slopes; or basket, as the Fort Valley separating the mountain from the Blue Ridge might be construed as having a basket-like shape.'' | |||
::<small>For not tolerating his racism? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
::According to ] ] 12:28, ], ] (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. --] 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Term for awkward near-similarity == | |||
:(ec) : site has some background regarding the name, mostly towards the bottom of the page. In short, it's not known for certain, but the writer seems o think it's most likely a corruption of a local Indian name. But then there's explanation as well, though I think the first reference is a better researched. We should probably update our article. ] (]) 12:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
::], the creek that ends up at Manassas]] I'm having a hard time swallowing the idea that Manassas is named for Massanutten; whether they share a coincidental linguistic connection is one thing (and I'm not even sure of that), but other than both being in Virginia, I'm not entirely sure one can see much of ] all the way from Manassas. Massanutten Mountain is an impressively ''long'' mountain, running about 50 miles from north to south. However, Manassas is some 50 miles east of it; and there's several ridges between Manassas and Masanutten itself, notably the ] (closest to Manassas) and the main ridge of the ], behind which Massanutten lies. You can see on the map I linked. One ''may'' be able to make out the very northern end of Massanutten through some of the gaps of the closer ridges, but it wouldn't be the most striking geographic feature from Manassas. Seems like a ] to me, no better than the (obviously wrong) Jewish innkeeper story. --]''''']''''' 00:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The uncanniness of the ] would be a specific subclass of this. --] 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Funnily enough, ]'s meaning is forgetting. ] ] 12:32, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== Yearbooks == | |||
== Did segregation in the 1950s America affect Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants? == | |||
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) | |||
Did racial segregation in the 1950s of America affect Asian-Americans and then-recent Asian immigrants? If so, in what ways? Did Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants have to use the "colored" restrictions too? ] (]) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:No, they had their own separate problems. Here's a Should give you some ideas. ] ] 16:17, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:{{ec}} This is covered in detail at ]. See also ] and ], which in 1927 and 1923 respectively enshrined in law that "non-white"="black" for segregation purposes. ] (]) 16:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: |
:It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever. --] 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In the example of a high school yearbook, 2025 would be the year in which the 2024-2025 school year ended and the students graduated. Hence, "the Class of 2025" though the senior year started in 2024. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "Poor people (in 1st world countries) are poor because they are not aspirational" == | |||
:The purpose of a yearbook is to highlight the past year activities, for example a 2025 yearbook is to highlight the activities of 2024. ] (]) 06:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Are there any yearbooks that are named after the same years that they concern, e.g. 2024 yearbook concerning 2024, 2023 yearbook concerning 2023 etc. --] (]) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::A professional baseball team will typically have a "2024 Yearbook" for the current season, since the entire season occurred in 2024. Though keep in mind that the 2024 yearbook would have come out at the start of the season, hence it actually covers stats from 2023 as well as rosters and schedules for 2024. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::In the UK, the magazine '']'' releases an annual at the end of every year which is named in this way. It stands out from all the other comic/magazine annuals on the rack which are named after the following year. I worked in bookselling for years and always found this interesting. ] (]) 11:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Distinguish between ] (for predictions) and ] (for recollections). ¨] (]) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 21 = | |||
Is this statement true? I read a blocked sockpuppet say "In first world countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, etc, we generally have well funded schools, support networks, and public support for colleges and further education with loans and grants. So really there should be no excuse for people not to succeed unless they are lazy, inspirational or terrible at making life choices." Is this a valid argument? What about "When we see a 45 year old man working at the ]/] check out counter for the past 15 years, he failed at life"? In 1st world countries, should money not be a barrier? ] ] 20:29, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source? == | |||
:At least in the US, many of those things are lacking for the poor. For example, local funding of school districts ensures that schools in poor areas are perpetually underfunded, since those communities lack the resources to pay for their own schools. ] (]) 16:43, 18 October 2014 (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) | |||
:If everyone "succeeded", nobody would be left to work. If you see ''anyone'' at WalMart, be glad they're serving you. There's only so much money to go around, and no amount of aspiration is going to change that. If you want super-rich people, you need more who are relatively super-poor. ] ] 16:49, ], ] (UTC) | |||
: describes it as "] motto" and uses the reference {{tq|J. Bell, ‘Legal Theory in Legal Education – “Everything you can do, I can do meta…”’, in: S. Eng (red.), Proceedings of the 21st IVR World Congress: Lund (Sweden), 12-17 August 2003, Wiesbaden: Frans Steiner Verlag, p. 61.}}. ] (]) 05:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: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)? == | |||
:::The problem with this theory is that, even if everyone succeeds, some will succeed more than others, and then those who have succeeded less can be labelled as "lazy, indigent..." by those who have succeeded more. So such an attitude is at best patronising and at worst incendiary. --] (]) 17:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Yeah, the gap widens on its own, due to a feedback loop. See ] and ]. And yes, ] governments suppress aspiration. In first worlds, they just rely more on than on using their military. ] ] 17:16, ], ] (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". | |||
::::{{ec}}<small>] sounds nice.</small> I used to work at ], behind both a register and a customer service desk, training other cashiers, pushing carts, and I even tested for management (would've gotten it if the positions I wanted ever opened up). My experience there (though anecdotal) has only cemented the idea in my head that wealth is inversely related to common sense and good work ethic. Most of the "dumb cashier" stories I heard (and still hear) are usually the (far more financially comfortable) customer not having a damn clue how the real world works. Stuff like how a functioning store working for a greedy corporation keeps prices low, that "per lb" has meant "per pound" for Americans since Plymouth fecking Rock, how a near minimum wage employee staring at numbers all day might take two seconds longer to get your change than you'd like, that four items costing $3.99 will come closer to $12 than $9, or that customers breaking all the electric wheelchairs is not the same as me or the store discriminating against the handicapped.<nowiki></rant></nowiki> | |||
::::Wealth and stupidity may not be genetic, but both are inherited, usually together. ] (]) 17:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Here ] is giving , if you are willing to try a new start and hit the 1%. --] (]) 06:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:In Australia and Germany, university places are limited. Only the best students can get a place.<br>] (]) 17:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Some places in Australian universities are open to people willing and able to pay up front. ] (]) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (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? | |||
If the poor in First World countries are ignorant and lazy, it follows that the rich must be intelligent and hard-working. A few minutes' observation in a place where only rich people congregate, such as an expensive tea room, will rapidly disprove the proposition. While the accumulators of material wealth may have used brainpower and effort to amass it, their dependants and heirs need neither. And if money has become the sole measure of someone's success in life, perhaps the First World is not worth living in? --] (]) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
<small> | |||
"I asked her if she thought it was a good idea to have sex with a man who had repeatedly beaten her up, and from whom she said she wished to separate. | |||
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) | |||
"It's complicated, doctor. That's the way life goes sometimes." | |||
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." | |||
What had she known of this man before she took up with him? She met him in a club; he moved in at once, because he had nowhere else to stay. He had a child by another woman, neither of whom he supported. He had been in prison for burglary. He took drugs. He had never worked, except for cash on the side. Of course he never gave her any of his money, instead running up her telephone bills vertiginously. (...) | |||
] (]) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
What had her experience taught her? | |||
: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) | |||
"I don't want to think about it. The Housing'll charge me for the damage, and I ain't got the money. I'm depressed, doctor; I'm not happy. I want to move away, to get away from him." | |||
:::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 = | |||
'''Later in the day, feeling a little lonely, she telephoned her ex-boyfriend, and he visited her.''' | |||
== Mike Johnson == | |||
I discussed the case with the doctor who had recently arrived from Madras, and who felt he had entered an insane world. (...) He asked me what would happen next to the happy couple. | |||
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) | |||
"They'll find her a new flat. They'll buy her new furniture, television, and refrigerator, because it's unacceptable poverty in this day and age to live without them. They'll charge her nothing for the damage to her old flat, because she can't pay anyway, and it wasn't she who did it. He will get away scot-free. Once she's installed in her new flat to escape from him, she'll invite him there, he'll smash it up again, and then they'll find her somewhere else to live. There is, in fact, '''nothing she can do that will deprive her of the state's obligation to house, feed, and entertain her.'''" (...) | |||
: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) | |||
I asked the doctor from Madras if poverty was the word he would use to describe this woman's situation. He said it was not: that her problem was that she accepted no limits to her own behavior, that she did not fear the possibility of hunger, the condemnation of her own parents or neighbors, or God. In other words, '''the squalor of England was not economic but spiritual, moral, and cultural.''' " | |||
:: 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) | |||
"By the end of three months my doctors have, without exception, reversed their original opinion that the welfare state, as exemplified by England, represents the acme of civilization. (...) They come to realise that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgements in allocating economic rewards promotes anti-social egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their home countries. (...) 'On the whole', said one Filipino doctor to me, 'life is preferable in the slums of Manila.' '''He said it without any illusions as to the quality of life in Manila."''' | |||
::: 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) | |||
</small> | |||
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_oh_to_be.html | |||
] (]) |
:: I assume you mis-spoke: ''to show his support for ... anti-semitism''. ] (]) 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 while lecturing at a synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia (and under him Trump while groping the ]). Was Johnson speaking at a synagogue? --] 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It may have been . --] 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Precisely, {{u|Lambian}}. Here is Johnson's . ] (]) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::This year Hanukkah begins unusually late in the Gregorian calendar, starting at sundown on December 25, when Congress will not be in session. This coincidence can be described by the portmanteau ]. So, the Congressional observance of Hanukkah was ahead of schedule this year. Back in 2013, Hanukkah arrived unusually early, during the US holiday of ], resulting in the portmanteau of ]. ] (]) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::When you want to check the correlation between Jewish and Christian holidays, you can use the fact that Orthodox Christian months almost always correspond to Jewish months. For Chanucah, the relevant correlation is Emma/Kislev. From the table ], in 2024 (with ] 11) ''Emma'' began on 3 December, so 24 ''Emma'' is 26 December. ] (]) 15:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thanks, all! Much appreciated! ] (]) 02:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<big>In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. </big><small>Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years. It has been replaced by a constant '''whine of excuses, complaint, and special pleading'''. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. | |||
== Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol == | |||
Listening as I do every day to the accounts people give of their lives, '''I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions.''' (...) | |||
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) | |||
It is instructive to listen to the language they use to describe their lives. The language of prisoners in particular teaches much about the dishonest fatalism with which people seek to explain themselves to others, especially when those others are in a position to help them in some way. As a doctor who sees patients in a prison once or twice a week, '''I am fascinated by prisoners’ use of the passive mood and other modes of speech that are supposed to indicate their helplessness.''' They describe themselves as the marionettes of happenstance. | |||
: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) | |||
Another burglar demanded to know from me why he repeatedly broke into houses and stole VCRs. He asked the question aggressively, as if “the system” had so far let him down in not supplying him with the answer; as if it were my duty as a doctor to provide him with the buried psychological secret which, once revealed, would in and of itself lead him unfailingly on the path of virtue. Until then, he would continue to break into houses and steal VCRs (when at liberty to do so), and the blame would be mine. | |||
: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) | |||
'''When I refused to examine his past, he exclaimed, “But something must make me do it!”''' | |||
::There is a stub at ] (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''“How about greed, laziness, and a thirst for excitement?” I suggested.''' | |||
:: {{Ping|Askedonty}} Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error. | |||
'''“What about my childhood?” he asked.''' | |||
:: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''“Nothing to do with it,” I replied firmly.''' | |||
:::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 = | |||
He looked at me as if I had assaulted him. Actually, I thought the matter more complex than I was admitting, but I did not want him to misunderstand my main message: that he was the author of his own deeds. | |||
== London Milkman photo == | |||
Another prisoner claimed to be under so strong a compulsion to steal cars that it was irresistible—an addiction, he called it. He stole up to forty vehicles a week, but nevertheless considered himself a fundamentally good person because he was never violent towards anyone (...) | |||
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) | |||
Now the generally prevalent conception of an addiction is of an illness, characterized by an irresistible urge (mediated neurochemically and possibly hereditary in nature) to consume a drug or other substance, or to behave in a repetitively self-destructive or antisocial way. An addict can’t help himself, '''and because his behavior is a manifestation of illness, it has no more moral content than the weather.''' | |||
: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) | |||
So in effect what my car thief was telling me was that his compulsive car-stealing was not merely not his fault, but that the responsibility for stopping him from behaving thus was mine, since I was the doctor treating him. And until such time as the medical profession found the behavioral equivalent of an antibiotic in the treatment of pneumonia, he could continue to cause untold misery and inconvenience to the owners of cars and '''yet consider himself fundamentally a decent person.''' </small>http://www.city-journal.org/story.php?id=1371 ] (]) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "] Archive", which might mean it was in ]. ] ] 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. ] (]) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? ] ] 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. ] (]) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of ''Picture Post'' imply that it might have appeared in ''Picture Post''? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? ] ] 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. ] (]) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton. ] ] 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Not in the ''Daily Mirror'' of Thursday 10 October 1940. ] (]) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{Ping|DuncanHill}} Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::a lot of searches suggest it was the ''Daily Mail''. ] (]) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{Ping|Pigsonthewing}} I've checked the ''Mirror'' for the 11th, and the rest of the week. I've checked the ''News Chronicle'', the ''Express'', and the ''Herald'' for the 10th. ''Mail'' not on BNA. ] (]) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::As general context, from my professional experience of picture researching back in the day, photo libraries and agencies quite often tried to claim photos and other illustrations in their collections as their own IP even when they were in fact not their IP and even when they were out of copyright. Often the same illustration was actually available from multiple providers, though obviously (in that pre-digital era) one paid a fee to whichever of them you borrowed a copy from for reproduction in a book or periodical. Attributions in published material may not, therefore, accurately reflect the true origin of an image. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I just discovered this for myself with Bosman 2008 in ''The National Gallery in Wartime''. In the back of the book it says the ''London Milkman'' photo is licensed from ] on p. 127. I was leaning towards reading this as an error of some kind before I saw your comment. Interestingly, the Wikpedia article on Corbis illustrates part of the problem. ] (]) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Are we sure it was published at the time? I haven't been able to find any meaningful suggestion of which paper it appeared in. I've found a few sources (eg ) giving a date in September. I've found several suggesting it tied in with "]", which of course was almost unknown in the War. ] (]) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*: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) | |||
<small> | |||
:::{{re|Viriditas}} You might find someone at ]. ] (]) 01:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
"Oh, Lord," sighs the Junior Apostle (the Senior Apostle is away in Jerusalem), "many are widout jobs, many are widout mudders and farders, many are widout homes. We pray thee, Lord, to find dem work, to find dem homes, to bring comfort to dem dat are widout mudders and farders." | |||
::::Will look, thanks. ] (]) 01:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Update: The NYT indirectly refers to the photo in the abstract several days after it was initially published in October 1940. I posed the problem to ChatGPT which went through all the possible scenarios to explain its unusual absence in the historical record. It could find no good reason why the photo seems to have disappeared from the papers of the time. ] (]) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The shootings were much on the mind of the congregation, for the victims and perpetrators alike could have been the sons, brothers, or consorts (I hardly dare speak of husbands anymore, for fear of being thought implicitly intolerant) of the women who now sobbed their impromptu prayers facedown on their pews. (...) | |||
:Interestingly, 1942 report by a New York scientific organization indicates that the image (or the story) was discussed in the NY papers. ] (]) 01:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
"We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord!" | |||
(...) | |||
:I did find a suggestion somewhere that the picture was one of a pair with a postman collecting from a pillar box, with the title "The milk comes... and the post goes". Now THAT I ''have'' been able to track down. It appears on of ''Front Line 1940-1941. The Official Story of the Civil Defence of Britain'' published by the Ministry of Information in 1942. It's clearly not the same photo, or even the same session, but expresses the same idea. ] (]) 01:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
"But we are all sinners, Lord. Therefore we pray for forgiveness. We do not always follow Your ways, Lord; we are proud, we are stubborn, we want to go our own way. We think only of ourselves. That is why there is so much sin, so much robbery, so much violence, on our streets." | |||
::Yes, thank you. ] (]) 01:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman? == | |||
I recalled the faces of the young men in the prison now accused of murder: their hard, glittering, expressionless eyes—young men who recognized no law but their own desire of the moment. The old lady described (and explained) their radical egotism in a religious way. | |||
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) | |||
Murmurs of assent were heard everywhere. '''It wasn't the police's fault, or racism's, or the system's, or capitalism's; it was the failure of sinners to acknowledge any moral authority higher than their personal whim.''' And in asserting this, the congregation was '''asserting its own freedom and dignity: poor and despised as its members might be, they were still human enough to decide for themselves between right and wrong.''' And they offered hope to others, too: for if a man chose to do evil, he could later elect, by an act of will, to do good. '''No one had to wait until there was perfect justice in the world, or all the circumstances were right, before he himself did good.''' | |||
: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) | |||
</small> | |||
::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) | |||
http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_3_oh_to_be.html | |||
:::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) | |||
:::The Rhine would have been the ]. Several Roman forts were located on its southern bank, such as ], ] and ]. This makes the fraction closer to 40% (very close if you do not include the IJsselmeer polders). --] 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Indigenous territory/Indian reservations == | |||
] (]) 13:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
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> | |||
:Interesting testimony, though dated and overlong, but totally invalidated by the writer's obvious ideological bias (or do I mean blindness?). Though London has its problems, they are minor compared with the massive disparities in the United States. --] (]) 11:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::And those are relatively small next to the disparities in India or China. At the end of the day, no matter where we live, the biggest problems are the ones directly affecting us. If you literally went blind, that'd be much worse than reading that Is that bias? Is bias always bad? ] ] 14:56, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:In Suriname not as territories. There are some Amerindian villages. Their distribution can be seen on the map at {{section link|Indigenous peoples in Suriname#Distribution}}. --] 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_oh_to_be.html ] (]) 17:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
= December 24 = | |||
:], please see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/redefining-success-americ_n_3279718.html. | |||
:—] (]) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::That's good news. Not sure why you want me to read it. If it's about the "failed at life" thing in the OP, I didn't actually ask the question. Just rephrased it when it was deleted for being asked by a sock. Sorry for any confusion. All the replies under my name were me. There was actually another follow-up question I deleted outright, for lack of the right words. But the gist stayed the same without it. ] ] 21:58, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== |
== 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) | |||
:Racoons are often depecited in Japanese art as having big balls. As in 1/4 the size of the rest of their body. ] (]) 23:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::These are ], an entirely different species, not even from the same taxonomic family as ]s. The testicularly spectacularly endowed ones are ''bake-danuki'', referred to in the reply above yours. --] 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation? == | |||
I want to know how do the public at large in the western world (USA,Western and Eastern Europe ,Russia ,Australias and also the African countries perceive ] ,what is the level of popularity is he viewed as a superhuman entity or is he seen as one of the greatest exponents of world literature.In Bengal he is worshipped like a God.It is said that YB Yeats played a key role in translating The Gitanjali. Was Bernard Shaw critical about Tagore. What was his opinion regarding this man and his creations in public and private.How does the British and American public seen and sees Tagore and his work.I am a Bengali and find his works and songs not at all appealing. I find most of them artificial and arousing morbid emotions.Most of the Bengali people will frown upon me and mock me as uncultured and that i am imbecile lacking the mental capability to relish such great creation. I want to know the global assessment and how did the men in the British government appraised him in private .Were those men his fans.pardon for reposting i initially posted this question in language section but there volunteers say that this page is more appropriate.Did Tagore really deserve the Nobel prize in literature or it was out of wartime poltical consideration.Thanks.] (]) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
The Habsburg were descended (in the male line) from a female (empress ]). They were the Habsburg rulers of Austria because of her, not because of their Lorraine male ancestor. So their name goes against general European patrilinear naming customs. Sometimes, starting with ] they are called Habsburg-Lorraine, but that goes against the rule that the name of the father comes first (I've never heard that anyone was called Lorraine-Habsburg) and most people don't even bother with the Lorraine part, if they even know about it. | |||
:I would guess that the majority of people in the U.S. don't know who he is, and that some of those who have vaguely heard of him might not distinguish him from ]. I don't remember having read anything by him, but he's probably not any less meritorious than the mostly obscure Scandinavians who dominated the Nobel literature prize during its first decades... ] (]) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
As far as I can tell this mostly occurs in states where the sovereign happens at some point to be a female. The descendants of that female sovereign (if they rule) sometimes carry her family name (how often? that must depend on how prominent the father is), though not always (cf. queen Victoria's descendants). Another example would be king James, son of Mary queen of Scots and a nobody. But sometimes this happens in families that do not rule over anything (cf. the Chigi-Zondadari in Italy who were descended from a male Zondadari who married a woman from the much more important family of the Chigi and presumably wanted to be associated with them). | |||
:I just listened to ], and I think I speak for Canada when I say once is enough. Monotonous, but worse, because there are two voices. The lyrics are probably a little better in Bangla, but they're almost as boring as the tune in English. No offense to <s>your</s> the nation, just the anthem. I like <s>your</s> the flag. ] ] 18:43, ], ] (UTC) | |||
What do genealogists, especially those dealing with royal genealogies, call this sort of situation? I'm looking for something that would mean in effect "switch to the mother's name", but the accepted technical equivalent if it exists. | |||
::That he is Bengali does not necessarily mean that he is Bangladeshi -- ] has almost two-thirds the population of Bangladesh... ] (]) 20:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I suppose. Amended. Does West Bengal not have a flag? ] ] 20:36, ], ] (UTC) | |||
West Bengal is a state in India and so shares the same flag as the other states and India as a whole | |||
::Cool, thanks. Sometimes states or provinces have their own. Not a big fan of tricoloured flags. ] ] 13:18, ], ] (UTC) | |||
: I love his poetry and I've had his collected verse in my library for many years. I don't know his plays. I can't speak for Australians in general, though my suspicion is that he'd be regarded as a minor footnote who's best known - if he's known at all - for returning his knighthood after the ]. I don't remember ever hearing anyone quote him or even refer to him ]. Except, I did patronise an Indian restaurant in ] a couple of times, named . It's been there for at least 25 years, and I can't imagine the staff have never been asked what ] means. Whether this has played any role in bringing Tagore and his works to the consciousness of the effete diners of the national capital, I could not say. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 20:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Also do you know of other such situations in European history? | |||
* This question was also raised at the Language Ref Desk, where the OP was advised to raise it here. There are some other replies over there. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
In England where William (Orange) and Mary (Stuart) were joint sovereign did anyone attempt to guess what a line descended from them both would be called (before it became clear such a line would not happen)? | |||
* The guy is virtually unknown in Russia. I recall that ] referred to "a person called Tagore" as one of "the formidable mediocrities" from the early 20th century, alongside John Galsworthy and Romain Rolland. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
* In French, a couple of his books - the novel Gora and some poetry collections - are available in popular paperback editions, making them accessible without having to frequent a university library or a specialized bookshop. That's better than for most authors whose heyday was a century ago, but that's still a long way from being considered a universal classic like Dostoevski or Ibsen, and even further from being thought of a super-human entity. --] (]) 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I've read a translation of ''Gitanjali'', which I must say I found insufferably dull. But it was just a translation. He is supposed to have got the Nobel because of the recommendation of Yeats. He's one of those people that most 'educated' persons have heard of, but I don't think he's widely read in the West. Since he won the Nobel prize in 1913 I don't know what "wartime political consideration" would have been relevant. ] (]) 11:58, 20 October 2014 (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) | |||
::::{{small|Or 'surnamed' after their ''lack'' of territorial possessions, like poor ]. --] 02:09, 26 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) | |||
Could someone please make http://simple.wikipedia.org/Goodwill_(accounting) and/or explain it to me like I'm five years old, please? ] (]) 18:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:In hyphenated dynasty names, the elements are typically not father and mother but stem and branch: ''Saxe-Weimar'' was the branch of the Saxon dukes whose apanage included the city of Weimar, ''Bourbon-Parma'' the branch of Bourbon (or Bourbon-Anjou) that included dukes of Parma. ] (]) 03:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 25 = | |||
:The original idea was an attempted monetary valuation of the reputation and established contacts and business relationships of a firm, considered as intangible assets, but it appears to have become more complicated... ] (]) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Death Row commutations by Biden == | |||
:I heard a story recently that illustrates the importance of goodwill nicely. During the Great Depression the manager of a Ford Dealership refused to repo cars from people who couldn't pay. The owner fired him for this and repossessed the cars, ignoring the importance of goodwill. After the Depression ended, the customers were able to buy cars again, but wanted nothing to do with that Ford dealership, which went bankrupt. The fired manager went to work for a new Buick dealership, and all the customers followed him there. (Of course, the Ford and Buick dealers might be reversed in another town.) | |||
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) | |||
::With that story you hit the interesting ethical question of whether our putative manager used company funds to buy the goodwill of the customers, then unfairly took that goodwill with him when he left. ] (]) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Coca Romano's portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania == | |||
:::No funds were required to not repo the cars. Of course, the company would have rather had the payments, but repossessing cars during the Great Depression would have been rather pointless anyway, as there wouldn't be customers to sell them to. We recently had a similar issue in the US housing market, where banks repossessed houses, which had the effect of depressing property values, including other homes owned by the bank, and may well have decreased the bank's profits. Economic upheaval alters the normal rules, and doing "business as usual" isn't always the best option. ] (]) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I am trying to work out when Coca Romano's coronation portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania were actually completed and unveiled. This is with an eye to possibly uploading a photo of them to this wiki: they are certainly still in copyright in Romania (Romano lived until 1983), but probably not in the U.S. because of publication date. | |||
::::Stu, I know you're trying to help by guessing, but what you're talking about is ''not'' what goodwill accounting is about. The article is poorly written, but fairly clear on this: it refers to the overpayment (over the nominal value of the place) done during a corporate acquisition. ] (]) 13:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
The coronation took place in 1922 at Alba Iulia. The portraits show Ferdinand and Marie in their full regalia that they wore at the coronation. They appear to have been based on photographs taken at the coronation, so they must have been completed after the event, not before. | |||
It is actually very simple, although frequently explained badly. Say you buy a company. You will almost certainly have to buy it at a premium to its actual market value. That premium is the 'goodwill' element. ] (]) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
A few pieces of information I have: there is no date on the canvasses. The pieces are in the collection of the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu (inventory numbers 2503 for the picture of Marie and 2504 for Ferdinand) , p. 36-37], and were on display this year at Art Safari in Bucharest, which is where I photographed them. If they were published (always a tricky concept for a painting, but I'm sure they were rapidly and widely reproduced) no later than 1928, or in a few days 1929, we can upload my photo in this wiki. - ] | ] 04:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:By "actual market value," .43 means the market value of the company's underlying assets. The classic example is the purchase of a retail store. Let's say you pay $500,000 for a store. The inventory is worth $300,000, and the equipment and fixtures are worth $75,000; the lease is at a market rate, so it doesn't have a value. What is the other $125,000? That's considered "goodwill," a name that derives from the theory that the additional value of the store is due to the favorable opinion of customers. The formal definition under ] is "n asset representing the future economic benefits arising from other assets acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity that are not individually acquired and separately recognized"; see the (free registration required) to the ]. ] (]) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (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) | |||
== Did Chisso executives really go to jail? == | |||
== Was it ever mentioned in the Bible that the enslaved Jews in Egypt were forced to build the pyramids? == | |||
This article claims that two ] executives were sentenced to prison terms for their role in the ] disaster. However I can't find find any mention of this in both English and Japanese versions of the ] article. Did this really happen? ] (]) 20:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:It is mentioned in the ja:WP article with citation. See ]. They were sentenced to two years in prison with three years' suspension of sentence. So they didn't go to jail. ] <small>(])</small> 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you! ] (]) 13:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
The question as topic. I'm pretty rusty on the good book, but I don't recall that it was ever directly specified in Exodus, or anywhere else. But it seems to be something that is commonly assumed. ] (]) 23:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== WW1 Question (I think) == | |||
:According to , the story that the pyramids were built with slave labour is a myth; the builders were skilled workers, "engineers, craftsmen, architects, the best of the best". The people of the children of Israel being forced to work for the Pharaoh is mentioned in ] {{bibleverse-nb||Exodus|1:11|31}}: "{{tq|So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.}}". The pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible. --] 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I read a story a while back somewhere. Apparently it was a true story about - I believe - a WW1 battle in Africa, probably in ] between British forces and German forces, who were both suddenly attacked by a native tribe in the middle of the battle. The British and Germans temporarily halted fighting each other and joined forces to fight the natives, after which they resumed the battle. Does anyone know which battle this was? <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 21:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you. I thought that was the case. It's been 30 years since I read the Bible from cover to cover (I mainly just have certain passages highlighted now that I find helpful). But I do remember Zionist people very recently online Facebook claiming that the Jews built the pyramids and that Egyptian nationalists can go fuck themselves with their historical complaints about Israeli invasions of the Sinai Peninsula. ] (]) 02:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Right. You people can't help yourselves, can you? You didn't have to read the Bible cover to cover to find the answer. It's there in the first paragraphs of the book of Exodus. But you were looking for an excuse to talk about "Zionist people", weren't you? Of course any connection between pyramids and the Sinai is nonsensical (if it was actually made and you didn't just make it up) and there are idiots everywhere including among "Zionist people". Except you're no better, since you decided to post a fake question just to have an excuse to move the "conversation" from Facebook to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::You are mistaken. I support Israel 100%. I maybe shouldn't have said "Zionist" but I had a few drinks - what is the correct term to use for people who support Israel??. I was legit interested from half the world away about some historical arguments I saw online. ] (]) 03:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Anyway, Egyptian pyramids (certainly stone pyramids) were mainly an Old Kingdom thing, dating from long before Hyksos rule or Egyptian territorial involvement in the Levant. At most times likely to be relevant to the Exodus narrative, the ] was being used for royal burials... ] (]) 03:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Possibly a (garbled) reference to the ]? ] (]) 03:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::The chief pyramid-building era was around the 26th century BCE. Exodus, if it happened, would have been around the 13th century BCE, 1300 years later. A long time; we tend to misunderstand how long the ancient Egyptian period was. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 04:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 26 = | |||
::Australian and Turkish troops joined forces against a feared attack by Arab irregulars on one occasion towards the end of the Palestine Campaign: I'm not sure if any fighting actually occurred though. ] (]) 09:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== What would the president Trump brokered peace treaty in Ukraine look like? == | |||
== 'Living on air' fairy tale == | |||
I KNOW this is stupid. I'm pretty good at reaserching things on the internet. Can't find the answer to this. | |||
I know this is probably speculation, but going by what I've read in a few articles - how would the new president sort this out? | |||
I KNOW it's stupid but it's a challenge if you're up to it. | |||
- the war stops | |||
- Russia withdraws all troops from the invaded regions of Ukraine | |||
My wife made a comment about how she 'can't live on air'. It sparked a memory of what is most probably a fairy tale. Grimms or whatever. As badly as my memory serves me, the image it conjures up is that of a woman trying to scam a rich old man who makes him believe that she can eat air and survive on that. Seriously this is from my childhood and I'm 60 years old now but the neural connections brought up this image of a woman outside of a window pretending to eat air. | |||
- Ukraine withdraws all troops from the same regions | |||
I know it's not that important but it would prove to my wife that I haven't completely lost it by making this claim. | |||
- these regions become a DMZ, under control of neither party for the next 25 years, patrolled by the United Nations (or perhaps the USA/Britain and China/North Korea jointly) | |||
I don't know if you can help me but if you can I would be very grateful. | |||
- Russia promises to leave Ukraine alone for 25 years | |||
Thanks so much | |||
- Ukraine promises not to join NATO or the EU for 25 years | |||
- A peace treaty will be signed | |||
:] (]) 23:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
- The can will be kicked down the road for 25 years, at which point more discussions or wars will commence | |||
:Never heard of any fairy tale in the Western tradition (there are plenty of Asian ones), although to this day there are people who make a living through this claim, ] being the most famous. We have quite an extensive page on the topic at ]. ] (]) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
So maybe the Americans will say "this is the best deal you're going to get, in the future we're going to be spending our money on our own people and no-one else - if you don't take it, we'll let the Russians roll right over you and good luck to you". | |||
::See ] - also known as breatharianism. It is of course utter nonsense, though enough people have taken it seriously for a few to have starved themselves to death. ] (]) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Is this basically what is being said now? I think this is what Vance envisioned. ] (]) 03:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>I suppose it might be possible to live on air (and the micro-organisms in it), provided you had the machinery to process huge quantities of air, filter out the toxic items, and collect the nutrients. ] (]) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) </small> | |||
:{{small|The downside is that the residents of the buffer zone will be compelled to eat their pets. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
:You seem to be overlooking one of the major obstacles to peace -- unless it suffers a stinging military defeat, Russia won't withdraw from territories belonging to 1990s Ukraine which it's formally annexed -- Crimea and ]... -- ] (]) 03:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*]? ] (]) 01:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::You're right, Russia won't withdraw from territories belonging to 1990s Ukraine, but it is likely that Ukraine does not expect Russia to do so too. Restoring to pre-war territories and the independent of ], ], ], ], and ] are the best Ukraine can hope for. ] (]) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Never heard of any such plan. 25 years? This is completely made up. Can't say I'm surprised since this is the same guy who asked the previous "question". My understanding is that Misplaced Pages and the Reference Desk are not a forum for debate. This is not Facebook. But this guy seems to think otherwise. Anyway, there's no way that the territories Russia has annexed will ever go back to the Ukraine. The only question which remains is what guarantees can be given to Ukraine that Russia will never try something like this ever again and eat it up piecemeal. The best answer (from Ukraine's point of view) would have been that it join NATO but of course Russia won't have it. If not that, then what? This's exactly where the "art of the deal" comes in. Speculating in advance on Misplaced Pages is pointless. Better to do that on Facebook. ] (]) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::You're right, by policy Misplaced Pages is not a forum and ]. But attend also to the policy ]. Oh, and the guideline ] is another good one. ] ] 10:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Further, it's a bit pointless to tell an OP that WP is not a forum or a soapbox, but then immediately engage in debate with them about the matter they raise. -- ] </sup></span>]] 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:A politician's butt dominates his brain. What he is going to do is more important than what he had said. ] (]) 09:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Expect that a concept of a peace plan will be ready soon after day one. Until then we can only speculate whose concept. Will it be Musk's, Trump's, Vance's, Rubio's, Hegseth's, Kellogg's? The latter's plan is believed to involve Ukraine ceding the Donbas and Luhansk regions, as well as Crimea, to Russia,<sup></sup> after which the negotiators can proclaim: "]. ]." --] 10:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:* There may also be peace plans required for a possible US incursion in Canada and Greenland / Denmark. All three are members of the NATO, so this may be tricky. --] (]) 18:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*Here's a discussion of his long period of imprisonment without food:. ] (]) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Isn't this one of those "crystal ball" things we are supposed to avoid here? - ] | ] 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= October 19 = | |||
:{{agree}} ] (]) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism? == | |||
::If the OP provided an actual source for this claim, then it could be discussed more concretely. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It is not a claim, but a question, "What is being said now about the prospects and form of a Trump-brokered peace treaty?" Should the OP provide a source for this question? If the question is hard to answer, it is not by lack of sources (I gave one above), but because all kinds of folks are saying all kinds of things about it. --] 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ID card replacement == | |||
The Misplaced Pages article on Secular Humanism does not mention Confucianism, yet the article on Confucianism argues that it is "humanistic". That makes sense, since Confucianism does not really appeal to deities and the supernatural, even though the Confucian people may be a bit devotional. However, the devotional aspects seem to be tied to a religion, not really Confucianism. So, does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism, or is Secular Humanism a Western European concept? ] (]) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
In California you can get a drivers' license (DL) from the DMV, which both serves as an ID card and attests that you are authorized to drive a car. Alternatively, from the same DMV, you can get a state ID card, which is the same as a DL except it doesn't let you drive. The card looks similar and the process for getting it (wait in line, fill in forms, get picture taken) is similar, though of course there is no driving test. | |||
:No. Two different senses of the word. Confucius is only "humanistic" in that it doesn't involve a deity. It did involve ancestor worship, which ends any similarity it has with secular humanism. — ] ] 06:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
If you need a replacement drivers' license, you can request it online or through one of the DMV's self-service kiosks installed in various locations. That's reasonably convenient. | |||
:: I think "ancestor worship" is a mistranslation. Also, the rituals are not necessarily confined to Confucianism, as it is part of the indigenous Chinese religion. ] (]) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:It depends on which form of Confucianism we're talking about. Some Confucian authors wrote or interpreted from a purely political perspective, treating ancestor worship as a civil ceremony. Others wrote under the assumption that worshiping ancestors was necessary to maintain the approval of ]. Due to the latter form (Confucianism as a definite religion), there is only and at most potential overlap with secular humanism. ] (]) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
If you need a replacement ID card, you have to request it in person at a DMV office, involving travel, waiting in line, dealing with crowds, etc. DMV appointment shortens the wait but doesn't get rid of it. Plus the earliest available appointments are several weeks out. | |||
== Mediatrix of All Graces == | |||
My mom is elderly, doesn't drive, doesn't handle travel or waiting in line well, and needs a replacement ID card. I'm wondering why this discrepancy exists in the replacement process. Not looking for legal advice etc. but am just wondering if I'm overlooking something sane, rather than reflexive ]. Thanks. ] (]) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I have attempted FIVE times to edit because of a dead link. | |||
I have read ALL there is to do to edit the page and it will not allow me to do so. | |||
:European (Brit) here, so responding with logic rather than knowledge, but . . . . If a replacement ID could be requested remotely and sent, it would probably be easier for some nefarious person to do so and obtain a fake ID; at least if attendance is required, the officials can tell that the 25-y-o illegal immigrant (say) they're seeing in front of them doesn't match the photo they already have of the elderly lady whose 'replacement' ID is being requested. | |||
Please edit both to read : The True Story of Fatima by John de Marchi, I.M.C. page 87 "the third blasphemy" | |||
:Drivers' licences have the additional safeguard that drivers are occasionally (often?) stopped by traffic police and asked to produce them, at which point discrepancies may be evident. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} ] (]) 00:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, I guess there is some sense to that, though I haven't been stopped by police in quite a few years. I reached the DMV by phone and they say they won't issue an actual duplicate ID card: rather, they want to take a new picture of my mom and use that on the new card. Of course that's fine given that we have to go there anyway, but it's another way the DL procedure is different. ] (]) 00:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::What purpose does the ID card serve? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::See ]. These cards can be used for such purposes as boarding a plane, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes where proof of age is required, cashing a check, etc. Most folks use their driver's license for these purposes, but for the minority that does not drive, some form of official id is required from time to time, hence the delivery of such cards by states. --] (]) 13:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm just wondering under what circumstances a shut-in would ever use it. The OP could maybe explain. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::OP did not describe a "shut-in". And anyway, have you ever heard the well-known phrase-or-saying "none of your fucking business"? ] (]) 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Are you the OP? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Not OP and not a shut-in, but ID is necessary for registration for some online services (including ID requirements for access to some state and federal websites that administer things like taxes and certain benefits). I've had to provide photos/scans of photo ID digitally for a couple other purposes, too, though I can't remember off the top of my head what those were. I think one might have been to verify an I-9 form for employment. And the ID number from my driver's license for others. At least a couple instances have been with private entities rather than governments. The security implications always make me wary. -- ] (]) 23:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Unless someone affiliated with the CA DMV drops by here, I'm afraid none of us are going to be able to tell you why something is the way it is with them. Essentially it's requesting people to guess or predict at why X ''might'' be the case. Have you tried and asking them for an answer? You and/or her could also her CA state elected representatives and let them know your feelings on the matter. Sometimes representatives' offices will assist a constitutent with issues they're having involving government services ("constitutent services"). --] (]) 01:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:If your mom is old and her medical condition affects her ability to perform daily activities (she couldn't handle the travel or waiting in line well), she can ask her medical doctor to complete a DS 3234 (Medical Certification) form to verify her status. Then you can help her to fill out a DS 3235 application form on the DMV website and submit the required documents accordingly. ] (]) 09:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 27 = | |||
I am weary. aged 60 with RA and cannot stay up past the 11:19 MST where I have attempted to do this for over an hour and 1/2. | |||
== Building containing candle cabinets == | |||
I FINALLY created an account (which was holding me back) but I do NOT know how to code at all ! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Is there a term (in pretty much any language) for a separate building next to a church, containing candle cabinets where people place votive candles? I've seen this mostly in Romania (and in at least one church in Catalonia), but suspect it is more widespread. (I've also seen just candle cabinets with no separate building, but I'm guessing that there is no term for that.) - ] | ] 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:To help us out, could you provide a link to the article you are trying to edit? Go to the article, copy what is in the address bar (the ], which will have "en.wikipedia.org/wiki" in it), and paste it here. You can turn it into a link by putting <nowiki></nowiki> around it, or just paste it here and I'll fix that. | |||
: |
:] ''might'' cover it, but I suspect there's a more specific term in at least one language. {The poster fornerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 21:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
= December 28 = | |||
:In case it isn't obvious, you can reply to this by clicking the blue 'edit' next to your section title. Can you tell me what I.M.C. means in this context? Also, assuming you're trying to edit ], why does reference number 6 need to be replaced? ] (]) 08:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::To save a bit of time, I suspect that ] is the article in question. ] (]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::IMC is the ] (no article, but see ). De Marchi's book is discussed in ]. ] (]) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Anonymous sources and journalism ethics == | |||
I've read several, several, several news stories which used a source "who declined to be named", or sources, most frequently in news reports about security issues, but also in sports articles, and sometimes, even relatively "harmless" articles. I've even seen news reports where spokespeople decline to be named. I've ] ] about anonymous sources here before on the Reference Desk. But recently, I've been reading codes of ethics of various Journalism organizations. Basically, one aspect that is common to most of these codes of ethics is that anonymous sources should be used with care, as misusing them or even inventing them can damage reputations (see ]). In the cases where a person who wishes to be anonymous is quoted in a news report, many of these codes of ethics state that the reason(s) for anonymity should be mentioned. For example, the Associated Press , which states that "we must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity". Not all codes of ethics mention this (for example, Thomson Reuters' code of ethics does not require reasons for anonymity to be disclosed), but a significant number of codes of ethics do. However, most of the news articles I've read which quote anonymous sources do not explicitly mention any reason for anonymity. While my previous questions here have said that the reasons are obvious anyway, or that giving a reason for anonymity could give a clue to the source's identity, the fact that many codes of ethics mention the requirement for disclosing reasons of anonymity (to the point that it is suggested that the source not be used at all if the reason for anonymity is weak or suspicious) suggests that this is not considered a significant issue; in fact, these codes of ethics suggest almost the opposite: describe the source as closely and accurately as possible without explicitly naming the person. | |||
I'm aware that codes of ethics are not binding, and there is usually no penalty for breaching them (except for serious cases), but it nevertheless makes me wonder: how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"? Before anyone asks, I've read ] and ], but they don't answer my question. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 11:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:There could be various reasons. It might help if you could provide an example or two. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::One reason: When you consistently pop up in the top Google results or have a name like "The Most Trusted Name in News", you can do without worrying if poor sourcing is going to hurt the reader's confidence, by that point. The line between news and entertainment is blurrier than ever, and if you can get the eyeballs with a headline , it doesn't really matter The important thing is whether people hear it. Like you say, there's no or little punishment for unethically increasing business. Same reason people cheat at many jobs. ] ] 13:34, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:(Edit Conflicts) If I've interpreted you correctly, your essential question is: | |||
::"''. . . how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"?"'' | |||
:There could be various (not mutually exclusive) reasons for this: | |||
* The particular news agency concerned might not subscribe officially or in reality (Fox News, anyone?) to a particular set of ethics that requires it; | |||
* They might be omitted for the sake of brevity, particularly in a broadcast story where only seconds are available; | |||
* The journalists involved might not be working to their highest standards – we all have off days at work; | |||
* One or more journalists involved might not be fully competent in this respect; | |||
* The journalists might be under pressure from higher management to get the story out and fill the column or broadcast, even though they themselves do not have full confidence in it; | |||
* One or more of the journalists involved might actually be breaching guidelines deliberately, using illegal sources, obtaining information via bribery or blackmail, or making some things up, and is using the anonymity as cover; | |||
* Inclusion of the reasons might give to much of a clue to the source's identity, leading to that source being reprimanded, fired, arrested or assassinated, depending upon circumstances. (You mentioned this yourself, but I include it for completeness.) | |||
:I'm sure others can add further possibilities. Long story short: we live in an imperfect world, and there can be any number of innocent or non-innocent reasons why something doesn't measure up to an ideal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 13:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::And of course, when some people say , those some people are the same people. ] ] 13:56, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:It would be good to have an organization whose sole purpose is to confirm the existence of anonymous sources. The news org and source could agree to have that org confirm the source, and they would then meet them, with the same promise to keep the source hidden. This org should be located in a nation with strong protections for anon sources, and could be run on donations, as a charity, so no money is taken from the news org. In time, only news orgs with this type of confirmation on anon sources would be taken seriously. ] (]) 14:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I want to echo the above reqeust for examples. In particular, it sounds to me like your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. When you have two of the major news agencies not agreeing on whether it's necessary to give the reasons why, this would suggest it's hardly something settled among major proponents of journalism ethics. The fact that you found a significant number who do recommend it, only means it's something which a significant number do recommend, it doesn't mean it's had widespread consensus. (And I would note, at least to me significant can still be far from a majority, particularly in something with so many participants as this.) <p>Perhaps journalism ethics courses will consider giving the reasons the safer bet and so may be more likely to recommend this, perhaps not. <p>The more relevant question which you don't seem to have touched is whether people are violating the code of ethics they're supposed to be following. For example, are you finding many stories from AP or other sources where the code of ethics do suggest it, where the stories are not reporting the reason for anonymity? If you're primarily seeing stories from Reuters and other sources which don't recommend it, it seem again all you've got evidence for is that this isn't something with anything close to consensus and that journalists are following the code of ethic they're supposed to be following, but not necessarily following other ones which recommend different stuff. <p>On my part, I commonly hear or read a source saying something like "who asked to remain anonymous because she/he didn't have permission to speak to the media". <p>] (]) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::In both politics and in the business world, information is often leaked "strategically". This gives a false sense of empowerment to the media, the employees, etc. A way of getting the real story out there to kind of "prepare" the audience for what's coming. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
= October 20 = | |||
== Easter Island: Historical Low Temperatures == | |||
{{la|Easter Island}} | |||
Hi, | |||
My name is Ed McGarrity. I'm doing some research on historical low temperatures for Easter Island. I've run into some data from other sources that conflicts with the numbers posted on Misplaced Pages. | |||
Can anyone tell me what the source was for Misplaced Pages's numbers? If I can validate those figures, it will be very helpful. Please refer any helpful information to: (deleted) | |||
Thanks, | |||
Ed ''-- 00:24, 20 October 2014 199.17.232.4'' | |||
:Hi, Ed. Thanks for the question, but please (1) don't indent and double-space your text; it breaks the normal wiki formatting; I've edited your message to change it. (2) Pleas don't post your email address here; I've deleted it. And (3) please don't post ]. | |||
:If people want to answer, I suggest they post on the other desk, as there's already been a response there. --] (]) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Old Chinese object == | |||
]I recently came across our article on ]. Interesting stuff, right? Anyway, simple question: what is he holding in his hands in this photo? Some sort of incense, talisman or charm perhaps? Thanks, ] (]) 13:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: Google "What is Li Ching-Yuen holding". Appears to be a ] root. ] (]) 14:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, I suppose I deserve a ]ing for not googling first, though I will still be interested in any other info on the matter. ] (]) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== History of the motto of the Royal Society == | |||
I was wondering if anyone happened to know the answers to a few questions I have about the motto of the Royal Society: "Nullius in Verba". As well as being generally curious I'm thinking of getting this as a tattoo, but I want to do it properly, so I'm interested in early written records of it that I can reference for typeface etc. | |||
# In what year was the motto first used? | |||
# How and by whom was it chosen and was it ever formally ratified e.g. by a vote of the fellows? | |||
# In what document did the motto first appear in print? | |||
# Did the motto ever appear in the pages of the Philosophical Transactions, if so, where? (I can't seem to find it in the online archive, but it's possible that some of the front matter etc. was not digitized) | |||
I realise that the best course of action may be to write to the Royal Society and enquire directly, but I thought I'd give the reference desk a go first. Thanks in advance. ]<small> (] | ])</small> 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
:Hello Equistetum, ] has two sources which answer #2 (and possibly #1). The motto was ratified on Sept 17, 1662. The list of possible mottos (written in 1660) survives, and is in the handwriting of ], though the names of the other committee members aren’t mentioned. ] (]) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::P.S. Commons has this image showing one early printing of the motto.] (]) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Khwarazmian dynasty and "work unions" == | |||
In section three of the ] page, you can read some uncited lines about refugee mercenaries from Khorasan after the empire collapsed trying to set up unions and resist low pay. This early outbreak of class consciousness does seem a bit surprising, and I wonder if it really happened. | |||
I can't edit the article myself btw. It has been locked for well over a year now. ] (]) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:That was added almost 5 years ago in , and given the user's other edits, I would have to say he was making it up. ] (]) 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::"Class-conscious" movements existed long before that time -- see ] -- but they didn't take the form of modern trade-unionism. Mercenary soldiers demanding their pay is a situation that has shaken a number of realms in history, but I'm not sure that it had much resemblance to modern trade-unionism either.... ] (]) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Difference between a Credit Union and a Building Society == | |||
Is there any difference in the UK between a Building Society and a Credit Union? If so, what is it? --] (]) 22:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:You're allowed to read the article titled ] and the one titled ] and arrive at your own conclusions. No one here is likely to stop you from reading those articles. --]''''']''''' 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::That seems a bit unkind. I was asking because I spent some time reading about both and couldn't figure out the difference. If you don't want to answer my question, then just skip to the next one. --] (]) 18:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::In practice the main difference is that the building societies have been around for a lot longer. They usually have physical branches in more than one town, whereas a credit union may only have a single office. A building society would have more staff. By definition, a building society offers mortgages, whereas a credit union probably would not. ] (]) 07:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you. That's interesting because credit unions in Canada offer mortgages and have multiple branches. I've seen a few ads for credit unions popping up in London and was curious what the difference was. --] (]) 18:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::The credit union I do business with has multiple branches as well, and I'm in ] that brags about . ]. They also do mortgages and finance cars, IIRC. | |||
::::So far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is a historical one (and then a matter of purpose rather than effect, with Building societies focused more on actually getting homes, while credit unions were just an alternative to banks). If there was some massive overhaul of society to relabel things according to their purpose, they'd probably end up lumped together. ] (]) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::The OP was asking about the UK. Our credit unions are quite recently established. There was a discussion a year or so ago about whether their senior staff are well remunerated. I looked it up, and they are not, in fact they are largely volunteers. Moreover, they employ very few middle level or junior staff. You can get your salary paid into a credit union in the UK, although not many people are aware of that. You can save money with them, and of course they lend, mainly small sums and mainly to people who aren't well off. ] (]) 20:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
= October 21 = | |||
== England expects that every man etc. Why not Britain? == | |||
On 1805 October 21st Lord Nelson famously signaled "]". Can anyone explain how this was possible at such a historical moment (not some casual slip of the tongue) almost one hundred years after the Acts of Union? I do understand that in 1707 Scotland's contribution was something like three ships. However in 1805 the Royal Navy was (albeit in practice essentially an English thing) officially the whole of the kingdom of Britain's navy. To Nelson's sailors and soldiers at Trafalgar (most of them English I would guess) was "Britain" in 1805 still a somewhat artificial entity? Would employing "Britain" have smacked of officialese? Are there any other historical examples of this kind? <small><font style="color:#C0C0C0;font-family:Courier New;">Contact </font><font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">]</font> <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">]</font></small> 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:A lot of Irish sailors in the Royal Navy.<br>] (]) 03:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:They try and forget that, though: ]. ] (]) 03:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::The flag code used (devised by Rear Admiral ]) appears not to have 'Britain' as one of its codewords - though it does have 'England'. Spelling out 'Britain' would have made the message substantially longer, and thus would have taken more time to send. ] (]) 03:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: To this day, many people still refer to the "Queen of England", which is as terminologically accurate as, I dunno, the "President of California" or something. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 05:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Would that be President Schwarzenegger or President Eastwood? --] (]) 08:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::California was claimed for Queen Elizabeth by Sir Francis Drake. However, as the case of John Augustus Sutter shows - who was unlawfully deprived of the land upon which San Francisco now stands, won his law suit in 1855, and died a beggar on the steps of the Congress in 1880 - respect for others' property rights in that State does not seem to be very highly thought of. ] (]) 14:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Using a smaller geographic division to refer to the larger entity is a form of ] which is not confined to England/Britain. See also Holland/Netherlands, the state of ] (commonly called Rhode Island after the ] of the state), etc. There's also historical examples, such as ] which was originally applied only to ] and ] (Asia Minor and Asia Major respectively) and ] which was originally only applied to a ] inhabited by the colonial ] people (Carthage). --]''''']''''' 10:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Good point, but to me this fits better with ] than metonymy. The former is for parts of the whole, the latter is for aspects of the thing. Of course there is plenty of room for overlap. ] (]) 14:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I am currently reading a book about security in Britain during WWI and official memos, etc. most commonly referred to "England" as the protagonist in the war. Even in the 1950s when I was at school in England (sic) we needed to be rather actively taught that England and Britain were not the same thing. It is only in recent decades that there has been any political sensitivity in England on such matters. ] (]) 10:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::{{EC}} A suggestion as to why only "England" was in the naval flag code - all the ]s were in England at that time. ] in Wales was established as a naval base in 1814 and ] in Scotland wasn't constructed until the 20th century. However, a more likely explanation is that apparently "England" was sometimes used as a synonym for "Britain" even into the 20th century - see which was published in 1900. ] (]) 10:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't know. I see no problems with referring to the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom, but referring to it as "Britain" seems problematic. Historically, "Britain", "Briton" and "British" were used to refer to the Brythonic peoples and their descendants, not the English. It seems inaccurate to refer to something of Anglo-Saxon origin as "British". ] (]) 12:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::While originally the words "Briton" and "British" referred to the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of Roman and pre-Roman times, during the modern era, the words came to refer to all of the inhabitants of Great Britain, as well as at least the Protestants of Northern Ireland, whose ancestors came from Great Britain. During the modern era, ''Britain'' has become a widely recognized synonym for the United Kingdom, and few people are concerned about the word's Roman or pre-Roman origins. ] (]) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::The English have probably always had a stronger emotional tie to "England" than to "Britain". ''Britain'' stands for the imperial, world-power, dominant side of the United Kingdom. ''England'' is the motherland, where people spent their childhoods and have their families. Assuming that all or a large majority of the seamen Nelson was addressing were English, referring to "England" in his appeal gave it a more visceral emotional power. ] (]) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The England/Britain thing sometimes reminds me of the usage of ]. ] (]) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
*Does this mean that rather than speaking English, Americans speak British? ] (]) 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:No, American English is clearly a variety of ] rather than of ] or any other British language. American English ultimately derived specifically from England (though with some influences probably by way of what is now Northern Ireland). There is no "British language", or if there is, reverting to Tharthan's point above, that language is Welsh. ] (]) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::That's hardly clear, given American is Rhotic like Scots and Irish, the influence of Irish on Americn, and the fact that Germans and Irish outnumber English by ethnicity in American residents. If anything, it's clear the Queen Great Britain speaks the President's American. Except she's fonder of Churchill. ] (]) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Or Breton. Which is actually called "British". ] (]) | |||
:::I am aware it's called Breton. Where is it called British? That's like saying Dutch is called Deutsch and Slovenian's called Slovak, no? ] (]) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
* was from '']'', set during WWII: | |||
*: | |||
*: Montagu: I can assure you that this is an opportunity for your son to do a great thing for England. | |||
*: The Father: My son, sir, was a Scotsman. Very proud of it. | |||
*: Montagu: I beg your pardon. | |||
*: The Father: Never mind. We're used to that. You English always talk about England when you mean Britain. | |||
* -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 20:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Part of the the reason for this is that much of the most famous English literature was written before the Act of Union. Shakespeare is almost all about "England", not "Britain" (with the exception of late James I/IV era plays). So much of the most famous patriotic literature uses 'England'. And of course "United Kingdom" is more of a technical label than a ''name''. But I've always also thought that this is related to the very words England and Britain. I don't known why, but the name "England" just ''sounds better'' than "Britain" - more inspiring. When Clifton Webb says "do a great thing for ''England''", there's something in the rhythm and the sharpness of the consonants that has a ring to it. It just seems to shine in a way that "do a great thing for Britain" doesn't. Britain has a dull sound. ] (]) 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::In the 19th century, it was quite common to use the term 'England' when, by the context, it meant either Britain or the United Kingdom. Look for example at ] and see how often he mentions England compared with Britain. See also ]. ] (]) 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Peirce and Bergson == | |||
The Misplaced Pages-Article on Henri Bergson states, quote: | |||
Charles Sanders Peirce took strong exception to those who associated him with Bergson. In response to a letter comparing his work with that of Bergson he wrote, “a man who seeks to further science can hardly commit a greater sin than to use the terms of his science without anxious care to use them with strict accuracy; it is not very gratifying to my feelings to be classed along with a Bergson who seems to be doing his utmost to muddle all distinctions.” | |||
I have worked on Peirce for years but cannot find this Quote. Unfortunately there is no footnote to tell me where to look. | |||
Can anybody help me verify that Peirce wrote what he supposedly wrote and tell me where I can find the information? ] (]) 16:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The following source cites (''Gunter 1986: 101''): | |||
:Bankov, Kristian; (PDF) Acta Semiotica Fennica IX. International Semiotics Institute at Imatra, 2000. p 36 | |||
:*Gunter, Pete A. Y. 1986. ''Henri Bergson: A Bibliography''. Bowling Green, OH: Philosophy Documentation Center | |||
:—E:<small>] (]) 18:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Why does the CIA World Factbook consider South Africa a developed country which by their definition means 'high income or 1st world' economy? == | |||
Why does the CIA World Factbook consider South Africa a developed country which by their definition means 'high income or 1st world' economy? | |||
<blockquote> | |||
This is the current CIA standard. And they consider developed to be equivalent to the 1st world. | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries | |||
the top group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates; also known as the First World, high-income countries, the North, industrial countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $15,000 although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $15,000 and eight of the excluded OPEC countries have figures of more than $20,000; the DCs include: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US; note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey | |||
</blockquote> | |||
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#D | |||
--] (]) 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:"The criteria for including these states are not mentioned." Hard to be sure if that's matter of fact from Misplaced Pages, or a veiled threat from the CIA. Probably safe to say South Africa is what it is, and that's all there is to it. That's as far as I'm digging, anyway. A better answer will probably be along shortly. ] ] 23:23, ], ] (UTC) | |||
= October 22 = | |||
== Question about Iliad and Odyssey == | |||
The Illiad or the Odyssey? ] (]) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:<small>I've added a more descriptive title as the header at the top of this page suggests. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Could you be more specific about what you're asking about? Else, see ] and ]. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:*I'm not asking for knowledge--I have that. I just want to know, Illiad or Odyssey? Can't do both. ] (]) 01:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::*Sure you can. Read one, and then the other. Or, to make things more challenging, read a chapter from each, alternating until they're both done. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::*My students can't, smartypants. ] (]) 02:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::*Can't what? Read? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::''Suetonius'', duh. ] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Read the Iliad first, then the Odyssey. The events of the Iliad precede those of the Odyssey, so it makes sense to read it first. Also important to remember the differences between the two in terms of style. The Iliad is basically "Game of Thrones" There's dozens of characters to keep track of, you leave one for quite a while, then later come back, and jump between them. Actually, it's like reading one of the middle books of the Game of Thrones series, without reading the others: the war is already going on at the beginning, and it isn't over by the end. The story supposes you are familiar with the principles and what's already happened in the Trojan War, and so has other purposes than simply telling a straight, linear narrative. There are some distinct philosophical themes running through it, but as a narrative, it doesn't have as much drive as the Odyssey. It's a good read, but as far as a narrative arc, the Odyssey is an easier read. You have only one major character (Odysseus, who is also a character in the Iliad) and the story has a clear beginning-middle-end with episodes that move it along in a clear direction. The thing to remember about these stories is that they contain characters the original audience would have been so familiar with, they don't need to have the sort of ] you'd find in a self-contained drama. The characters in these stories would have been like Batman and Superman and Spiderman to the original audience, so the stories spend little to no time developing the characters. Just like when Superman shows up, everyone in the audience knows the basic backstory, so we can just get on with him kicking ass, when Achilles or Paris shows up, we don't get a lot of "Oh, that's the invincible warrior with the weak spot" or "That's the guy who kidnapped Helen" or all that. Everyone knows that stuff already, so we just jump in in the middle of the action. It may be good to brush up on the character backgrounds ''before'' reading the Iliad, just so you know who everyone is. --]''''']''''' 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 01:43, 28 December 2024
Welcome to the humanities sectionof 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 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)
- @Viriditas: You might find someone at WP:RX. DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Will look, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: You might find someone at WP:RX. DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 28 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)
Update: The NYT indirectly refers to the photo in the abstract several days after it was initially published in October 1940. I posed the problem to ChatGPT which went through all the possible scenarios to explain its unusual absence in the historical record. It could find no good reason why the photo seems to have disappeared from the papers of the time. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interestingly, this 1942 report by a New York scientific organization indicates that the image (or the story) was discussed in the NY papers. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did find a suggestion somewhere that the picture was one of a pair with a postman collecting from a pillar box, with the title "The milk comes... and the post goes". Now THAT I have been able to track down. It appears on page 57 of Front Line 1940-1941. The Official Story of the Civil Defence of Britain published by the Ministry of Information in 1942. It's clearly not the same photo, or even the same session, but expresses the same idea. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 28 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)
- The Rhine would have been the Oude Rijn. Several Roman forts were located on its southern bank, such as Albaniana, Matilo and Praetorium Agrippinae. This makes the fraction closer to 40% (very close if you do not include the IJsselmeer polders). --Lambiam 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous territory/Indian reservations
Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiyr (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Suriname not as territories. There are some Amerindian villages. Their distribution can be seen on the map at Indigenous peoples in Suriname § Distribution. --Lambiam 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
December 24
Testicles in art
What are some famous or iconic depictions of testicles in visual art (painting, sculpture, etc)? Pre 20th century is more interesting to me but I will accept more modern works as well. 174.74.211.109 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's Charging Bull (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the Moschophoros (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the Kritios Boy, through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! 178.51.16.158 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article you're looking for is Artemision Bronze. GalacticShoe (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe the Cerne Abbas Giant. Shantavira| 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bake-danuki, somewhat well-known in the West through Pom Poko. Card Zero (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Racoons are often depecited in Japanese art as having big balls. As in 1/4 the size of the rest of their body. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- These are raccoon dogs, an entirely different species, not even from the same taxonomic family as raccoons. The testicularly spectacularly endowed ones are bake-danuki, referred to in the reply above yours. --Lambiam 02:28, 26 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)
- Or 'surnamed' after their lack of territorial possessions, like poor John Lackland. --Lambiam 02:09, 26 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)
- In hyphenated dynasty names, the elements are typically not father and mother but stem and branch: Saxe-Weimar was the branch of the Saxon dukes whose apanage included the city of Weimar, Bourbon-Parma the branch of Bourbon (or Bourbon-Anjou) that included dukes of Parma. —Tamfang (talk) 03:48, 27 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)
Was it ever mentioned in the Bible that the enslaved Jews in Egypt were forced to build the pyramids?
The question as topic. I'm pretty rusty on the good book, but I don't recall that it was ever directly specified in Exodus, or anywhere else. But it seems to be something that is commonly assumed. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to this video, the story that the pyramids were built with slave labour is a myth; the builders were skilled workers, "engineers, craftsmen, architects, the best of the best". The people of the children of Israel being forced to work for the Pharaoh is mentioned in Exodus 1:11: "
So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.
". The pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible. --Lambiam 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. I thought that was the case. It's been 30 years since I read the Bible from cover to cover (I mainly just have certain passages highlighted now that I find helpful). But I do remember Zionist people very recently online Facebook claiming that the Jews built the pyramids and that Egyptian nationalists can go fuck themselves with their historical complaints about Israeli invasions of the Sinai Peninsula. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. You people can't help yourselves, can you? You didn't have to read the Bible cover to cover to find the answer. It's there in the first paragraphs of the book of Exodus. But you were looking for an excuse to talk about "Zionist people", weren't you? Of course any connection between pyramids and the Sinai is nonsensical (if it was actually made and you didn't just make it up) and there are idiots everywhere including among "Zionist people". Except you're no better, since you decided to post a fake question just to have an excuse to move the "conversation" from Facebook to Misplaced Pages. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. I support Israel 100%. I maybe shouldn't have said "Zionist" but I had a few drinks - what is the correct term to use for people who support Israel??. I was legit interested from half the world away about some historical arguments I saw online. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. You people can't help yourselves, can you? You didn't have to read the Bible cover to cover to find the answer. It's there in the first paragraphs of the book of Exodus. But you were looking for an excuse to talk about "Zionist people", weren't you? Of course any connection between pyramids and the Sinai is nonsensical (if it was actually made and you didn't just make it up) and there are idiots everywhere including among "Zionist people". Except you're no better, since you decided to post a fake question just to have an excuse to move the "conversation" from Facebook to Misplaced Pages. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I thought that was the case. It's been 30 years since I read the Bible from cover to cover (I mainly just have certain passages highlighted now that I find helpful). But I do remember Zionist people very recently online Facebook claiming that the Jews built the pyramids and that Egyptian nationalists can go fuck themselves with their historical complaints about Israeli invasions of the Sinai Peninsula. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, Egyptian pyramids (certainly stone pyramids) were mainly an Old Kingdom thing, dating from long before Hyksos rule or Egyptian territorial involvement in the Levant. At most times likely to be relevant to the Exodus narrative, the Valley of the Kings was being used for royal burials... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- The chief pyramid-building era was around the 26th century BCE. Exodus, if it happened, would have been around the 13th century BCE, 1300 years later. A long time; we tend to misunderstand how long the ancient Egyptian period was. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
December 26
What would the president Trump brokered peace treaty in Ukraine look like?
I know this is probably speculation, but going by what I've read in a few articles - how would the new president sort this out?
- the war stops
- Russia withdraws all troops from the invaded regions of Ukraine
- Ukraine withdraws all troops from the same regions
- these regions become a DMZ, under control of neither party for the next 25 years, patrolled by the United Nations (or perhaps the USA/Britain and China/North Korea jointly)
- Russia promises to leave Ukraine alone for 25 years
- Ukraine promises not to join NATO or the EU for 25 years
- A peace treaty will be signed
- The can will be kicked down the road for 25 years, at which point more discussions or wars will commence
So maybe the Americans will say "this is the best deal you're going to get, in the future we're going to be spending our money on our own people and no-one else - if you don't take it, we'll let the Russians roll right over you and good luck to you".
Is this basically what is being said now? I think this is what Vance envisioned. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- The downside is that the residents of the buffer zone will be compelled to eat their pets. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be overlooking one of the major obstacles to peace -- unless it suffers a stinging military defeat, Russia won't withdraw from territories belonging to 1990s Ukraine which it's formally annexed -- Crimea and Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, Russia won't withdraw from territories belonging to 1990s Ukraine, but it is likely that Ukraine does not expect Russia to do so too. Restoring to pre-war territories and the independent of Crimean, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia are the best Ukraine can hope for. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Never heard of any such plan. 25 years? This is completely made up. Can't say I'm surprised since this is the same guy who asked the previous "question". My understanding is that Misplaced Pages and the Reference Desk are not a forum for debate. This is not Facebook. But this guy seems to think otherwise. Anyway, there's no way that the territories Russia has annexed will ever go back to the Ukraine. The only question which remains is what guarantees can be given to Ukraine that Russia will never try something like this ever again and eat it up piecemeal. The best answer (from Ukraine's point of view) would have been that it join NATO but of course Russia won't have it. If not that, then what? This's exactly where the "art of the deal" comes in. Speculating in advance on Misplaced Pages is pointless. Better to do that on Facebook. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, by policy Misplaced Pages is not a forum and not a soapbox. But attend also to the policy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Oh, and the guideline assume good faith is another good one. Card Zero (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Further, it's a bit pointless to tell an OP that WP is not a forum or a soapbox, but then immediately engage in debate with them about the matter they raise. -- Jack of Oz 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- A politician's butt dominates his brain. What he is going to do is more important than what he had said. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Expect that a concept of a peace plan will be ready soon after day one. Until then we can only speculate whose concept. Will it be Musk's, Trump's, Vance's, Rubio's, Hegseth's, Kellogg's? The latter's plan is believed to involve Ukraine ceding the Donbas and Luhansk regions, as well as Crimea, to Russia, after which the negotiators can proclaim: "Mission accomplished. Peace for our time." --Lambiam 10:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- There may also be peace plans required for a possible US incursion in Canada and Greenland / Denmark. All three are members of the NATO, so this may be tricky. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this one of those "crystal ball" things we are supposed to avoid here? - Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree Slowking Man (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the OP provided an actual source for this claim, then it could be discussed more concretely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a claim, but a question, "What is being said now about the prospects and form of a Trump-brokered peace treaty?" Should the OP provide a source for this question? If the question is hard to answer, it is not by lack of sources (I gave one above), but because all kinds of folks are saying all kinds of things about it. --Lambiam 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the OP provided an actual source for this claim, then it could be discussed more concretely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
ID card replacement
In California you can get a drivers' license (DL) from the DMV, which both serves as an ID card and attests that you are authorized to drive a car. Alternatively, from the same DMV, you can get a state ID card, which is the same as a DL except it doesn't let you drive. The card looks similar and the process for getting it (wait in line, fill in forms, get picture taken) is similar, though of course there is no driving test.
If you need a replacement drivers' license, you can request it online or through one of the DMV's self-service kiosks installed in various locations. That's reasonably convenient.
If you need a replacement ID card, you have to request it in person at a DMV office, involving travel, waiting in line, dealing with crowds, etc. DMV appointment shortens the wait but doesn't get rid of it. Plus the earliest available appointments are several weeks out.
My mom is elderly, doesn't drive, doesn't handle travel or waiting in line well, and needs a replacement ID card. I'm wondering why this discrepancy exists in the replacement process. Not looking for legal advice etc. but am just wondering if I'm overlooking something sane, rather than reflexive system justification. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- European (Brit) here, so responding with logic rather than knowledge, but . . . . If a replacement ID could be requested remotely and sent, it would probably be easier for some nefarious person to do so and obtain a fake ID; at least if attendance is required, the officials can tell that the 25-y-o illegal immigrant (say) they're seeing in front of them doesn't match the photo they already have of the elderly lady whose 'replacement' ID is being requested.
- Drivers' licences have the additional safeguard that drivers are occasionally (often?) stopped by traffic police and asked to produce them, at which point discrepancies may be evident. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I guess there is some sense to that, though I haven't been stopped by police in quite a few years. I reached the DMV by phone and they say they won't issue an actual duplicate ID card: rather, they want to take a new picture of my mom and use that on the new card. Of course that's fine given that we have to go there anyway, but it's another way the DL procedure is different. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- What purpose does the ID card serve? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Identity documents in the United States. These cards can be used for such purposes as boarding a plane, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes where proof of age is required, cashing a check, etc. Most folks use their driver's license for these purposes, but for the minority that does not drive, some form of official id is required from time to time, hence the delivery of such cards by states. --Xuxl (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering under what circumstances a shut-in would ever use it. The OP could maybe explain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- OP did not describe a "shut-in". And anyway, have you ever heard the well-known phrase-or-saying "none of your fucking business"? DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are you the OP? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not OP and not a shut-in, but ID is necessary for registration for some online services (including ID requirements for access to some state and federal websites that administer things like taxes and certain benefits). I've had to provide photos/scans of photo ID digitally for a couple other purposes, too, though I can't remember off the top of my head what those were. I think one might have been to verify an I-9 form for employment. And the ID number from my driver's license for others. At least a couple instances have been with private entities rather than governments. The security implications always make me wary. -- Avocado (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- OP did not describe a "shut-in". And anyway, have you ever heard the well-known phrase-or-saying "none of your fucking business"? DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering under what circumstances a shut-in would ever use it. The OP could maybe explain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Identity documents in the United States. These cards can be used for such purposes as boarding a plane, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes where proof of age is required, cashing a check, etc. Most folks use their driver's license for these purposes, but for the minority that does not drive, some form of official id is required from time to time, hence the delivery of such cards by states. --Xuxl (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- What purpose does the ID card serve? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I guess there is some sense to that, though I haven't been stopped by police in quite a few years. I reached the DMV by phone and they say they won't issue an actual duplicate ID card: rather, they want to take a new picture of my mom and use that on the new card. Of course that's fine given that we have to go there anyway, but it's another way the DL procedure is different. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unless someone affiliated with the CA DMV drops by here, I'm afraid none of us are going to be able to tell you why something is the way it is with them. Essentially it's requesting people to guess or predict at why X might be the case. Have you tried contacting them and asking them for an answer? You and/or her could also contact her CA state elected representatives and let them know your feelings on the matter. Sometimes representatives' offices will assist a constitutent with issues they're having involving government services ("constitutent services"). --Slowking Man (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- If your mom is old and her medical condition affects her ability to perform daily activities (she couldn't handle the travel or waiting in line well), she can ask her medical doctor to complete a DS 3234 (Medical Certification) form to verify her status. Then you can help her to fill out a DS 3235 application form on the DMV website and submit the required documents accordingly. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
December 27
Building containing candle cabinets
Is there a term (in pretty much any language) for a separate building next to a church, containing candle cabinets where people place votive candles? I've seen this mostly in Romania (and in at least one church in Catalonia), but suspect it is more widespread. (I've also seen just candle cabinets with no separate building, but I'm guessing that there is no term for that.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shrine might cover it, but I suspect there's a more specific term in at least one language. {The poster fornerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)