Revision as of 10:07, 24 February 2015 editKpalion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,168 edits →Introduction of serfdom in Russia← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:06, 24 December 2024 edit undoAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,894 edits →European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation? | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
</noinclude> | |||
]</noinclude> | |||
= |
= December 11 = | ||
== |
== Shopping carts == | ||
Where were the first shopping carts introduced? | |||
Is there a link between the two? Or could a convincing case (argument) be made that there was? I mean, it's the same kind of pastoral-romanticist ludditic mindset that worships everything pre-industrial and rural that also gave rise to Nazism ("blood and soil" ideology specifically.) I do understand that people may believe similar things for very different reasons, but still? ] (]) 15:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
*] and ] say the Humpty Dumpty chain | |||
*] says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review | |||
Both articles agree it was in 1937 in Oklaholma. I believe that Humpty Dumpty is more likely, but some high quality sources would be useful. ] (]) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It seems to be a matter of some dispute, but by the Smithsonian Institution has the complex details of the dispute between Sylvan Goldman and ]. No mention of Piggly Wiggly, but our article on Watson notes that in 1946, he donated the first models of his cart to 10 grocery stores in Kansas City. | |||
:]. In any case, those Nazis were so pre-industrial they built massive motorways and huge quantities of tanks, aircraft and even ballistic missiles. ] (]) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
: has both Watson and Goldman introducing their carts in 1947 (this may refer to carts that telescope into each other for storage, a feature apparently lacking in Goldman's first model). | |||
: says that Goldman's first cart was introduced to Humpty Dumty in 1937. | |||
:Make of that what you will. ] (]) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Absolutely. I remember that the power lift arrangement mentioned in the Smithsonian's link was still an object of analysis for would-be inventors in the mid-sixties, and possibly later, even though the soon to be ubiquituous checkout counter conveyor belt was very much ready making it unnecessary. Couldn't help curiously but think about those when learning about ] at school later, see my user page, but it's true "Bredt" sounded rather like "Bread" in my imagination. --] (]) 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:On Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing shopping carts referenced in Portland, Oregon in 1935 or earlier, and occasionally illustrated, at a store called the Public Market; and as far as the term itself is concerned, it goes back to at least the 1850s. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::But perhaps referring to a cart brought by the shopper to carry goods home with, rather than one provided by the storekeeper for use in-store? ] (]) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Alansplodge|Askedonty|Baseball Bugs}} thank you for your help, it seems that the Harvard Business Review is mistaken and the Piggly Wiggly chain did not introduce the first shopping baskets, which answers my question. The shopping cart article references a , which shows that several companies were selling early shopping carts in 1937, so crediting Sylvan Goldman alone is not the whole story. ] (]) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yea, I don't understand that. Perhaps they are confusing them with another genocidal regime, the ] under ], which most definitely did believe in a return to agriculture and abolishing industry. ] (]) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII == | |||
Asmrulz -- Hitler was personally a vegetarian, but did not expect it of other Nazis. Not sure what the connection to raw-foodism is; ] does not mention any such connection (though covering a number of Nazi-related pseudo-scientific endeavors). Gardner mentions only ]... ] (]) 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
At 53:20 in ], British soldiers talk about 'flowers on the way into Belgium, raspberries on the way out', and specifically reference lilacs. I imagine this was very clear to 1958 audiences, but what is the significance of lilacs? Is it/was it a symbol of Belgium? ] (]) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Inaccuracies in Francis Brett Young novel "They seek a country" == | |||
:I think it's just that the BEF ] in the Spring, which is lilac time. ] (]) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:There are contemporary reports of the streets being strewn with lilac blossom. See "Today the troops crossed the frontier along roads strewn with flowers. Belgian girls, wildly enthusiastic, plucked lilac from the wayside and scattered it along the road to be torn and twisted by the mighty wheels of the mechanised forces." ] (]) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Ah! That would explain it, thanks! ] (]) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 12 = | |||
Prisoners land at False Bay near The Cape. They escape North on foot. But are picked up and rescued from starvation a day or two later 500+ miles away near Grahamstown | |||
] (]) 17:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== The USA adding a new state == | |||
:Is that what the novel claims, and you want us to fact check if it actually happened ? (It would seem to be impossible to move that far in 2 days on foot, but they might have found some faster mode of transport.) ] (]) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Just looking at a map, it seems they'd be better of by sea than by land. Any mention of them finding a boat? I'm far from a nautical expert, though, no idea if that's a feasible distance to cover. ] ] 23:50, ], ] (UTC) | |||
If my understanding is correct, the following numbers are valid at present: (a) number of Senators = 100; (b) number of Representatives = 435; (c) number of electors in the Electoral College = 538. If the USA were to add a new state, what would happen to these numbers? Thank you. ] (]) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Château Gaillard architect and workers == | |||
:The number of senators would increase by 2, and the number of representatives would probably increase by at least 1. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thus, to answer the final question, the minimum number of Electors would be 3… more if the new state has more Representatives (based on population). ] (]) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In the short term, there would be extra people in congress. The ] had 437 representatives, because Alaska and Hawaii were granted one upon entry regardless of the apportionment rules. Things were smoothed down to 435 at the next census, two congresses later. --] (]) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thanks. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me re-phrase my question. (a) The number of Senators is always 2 per State, correct? (b) The number of Representatives is what? Is it "capped" at 435 ... or does it increase a little bit? (c) The number of Electors (per State) is simply a function of "a" + "b" (per State), correct? Thanks. ] (]) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I see in our article on ] that it says, ''A master-mason is omitted, and military historian Allen Brown has suggested that it may be because Richard himself was the overall architect; this is supported by the interest Richard showed in the work through his frequent presence.'' <br /> | |||
:As I understand it, it is indeed capped at 435, though Golbez brings up a point I hadn't taken into account -- apparently it can go up temporarily when states are added, until the next reapportionment. --] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{br}}I suggest that (b) would probably depend on whether the hypothetical new state was made up of territory previously part of one or more existing states, or territory not previously part of any existing state. And I suspect that the eventual result would not depend on any pre-calculable formula, but on cut-throat horsetrading between the two main parties and other interested bodies. {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Nope, it's capped at 435. See ]. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --] (]) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The Constitution has a much higher cap, currently around eleven thousand. ] (]) 20:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Oh, one other refinement. The formula you've given for number of electors is correct, for states. But it leaves out the ], which gets as many electors as it would get if it were a state, but never <s>less</s> <u>more</u> than those apportioned to the smallest state. In practice that means DC gets three electors. That's why the total is 538 instead of 535. --] (]) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Oops; I remembered the bit about the smallest state wrong. It's actually never ''more'' than the smallest state. Doesn't matter in practice; still works out to 3 electors for the foreseeable future, either way, because DC would get 3 electors if it were a state, and the least populous state gets 3. --] (]) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </small> | |||
= December 13 = | |||
:No, Richard wouldn't have had those skills himself and wouldn't have taught them to other people. Richard could have designed the castle himself, in the sense that he told them what he wanted and they carried it out, but an actually qualified mason would have been in charge of the construction. Something similar happened with ] and the ]...Suger is generally credited as the architect, but I somehow doubt he was sawing wood and carving stone with his own hands. It's kind of like Richard was the executive producer of a movie. He gave them all the money and showed up to see how things were going, but he didn't actually do anything. ] (]) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== economics: coffee prices question == | |||
*Also the article says, ''...carters who transported the raw materials to the castle.'' What the heck is a "carter"? (Don't say a Jimmy!) AND what raw materials did they carry from where to the castle?--] (]) 22:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
**A carter would probably be someone operating a cart. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::O.K. - so, in this case, what raw materials might they be carrying to the castle?--] (]) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::P.S. - would the cart have been by man power only or pulled by an animal?--] (]) 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Normally the cart would be pulled by a beast of burden. The occupation of ''carter'' (Anglo-Norman ''careter'', French ''charretier'') has fairly recently been superseded by modern carriers and methods of delivery. The building materials would need to be transported. ] 08:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The main materials would have been stone and wood in enormous quantities. It's possible that they could have been transported by barge on the Seine, but then a cart (or rather, LOTS of carts) would have been needed to get them to the site. ] (]) 09:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks everybody for all the great answers. Now I can sleep!--] (]) 11:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
in news report "On Tuesday, the price for Arabica beans, which account for most global production, topped $3.44 a pound (0.45kg), having jumped more than 80% this year. " how do they measure it? some other report mention it is a commodity price set for trading like gold silver etc. what is the original data source for this report? i checked a few other news stories and did not find any clarification about this point, they just know something that i don't. thank you in advance for your help. ] (], ]) 01:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== family of Jesus Christ == | |||
:], they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the ]. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later | |||
Do not ask duplicate questions, see the miscellaneous desk. ] (]) 23:56, 19 February 2015 (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 == | |||
= February 20 = | |||
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) | |||
== Workplace behaviour == | |||
: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; | |||
Why do people often say that in the workplace, if you're making a nuisance of yourself and people tell get annoyed by you bothering them, you're doing a good job? ] (]) 12:36, 20 February 2015 (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.}} | |||
:The saying refers to situations where you are trying to effect changes that will be of benefit to your workplace, but facing resistance. Your co-workers may be content to do things a certain way, and don't want to take the time to consider that there could be a ''better'' way to do them. So they see your push for change as a nuisance and a bother. ] (]) 13:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
:: People seem to apply it to other situations in the workplace too though. Generally anything that requires communication to get things done. ] (]) 13:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:] (]) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: Not meaning to be facetious but why not just ask the speaker of that comment what they mean by it? In my opinion you are asking a very open-ended question, by which I am trying to say that a wide variety of responses are possible. I don't feel that a definitive "answer" is possible. But perhaps others can weigh in with clearcut responses that genuinely address your question. ] (]) 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Sources differ on the order. There is a list published in 1842 of 26 abbots as "generally ... reckoned" in order here | |||
== I'd rather wait than speak == | |||
: ] (]) 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? == | |||
Even though it's likely always been the case, I've only noticed recently that in NY and further north, it's not all-together uncommon for one person to be blocking the way ever so slightly and another to eagerly (or awkwardly) wait for them to move rather than saying 'excuse me' or 'sorry' and brushing past. They'll wait for a person to move out of the way before continuing on. It seems horribly inefficient in my mind and I don't see it as much in DC, Southern England, or various parts of Italy, where people generally excuse themselves and carefully move by or Israel where people are ] and just brush past you. What is this kind of behaviour called and what's the cause of this? Is it some, sort of mild ] or fear of communicating with others? ] | <sup>]</sup> 1 Adar 5775 14:05, 20 February 2015 (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) | |||
:<small>I'll be interested to read the answers, because I myself often behave like this (and reside in Southern England). However, I'll spare you from self-analysis unless it seems to become pertinent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 14:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
: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 == | |||
::<small> Wait for the person to move? Say "excuse me"? Obviously Flinders has never been on the NYC Subway at rush hour. We just push pass without saying anything (or making eye contact). </small> ] (]) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (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. | |||
:::<small>Sir, I ride the roving entertainment known as our subway thrice each weekday. I deftly move betwixt people, automatically saying excuse me and sorry and on occasion help people out and even enagage in conversation with random people. Trying to spread good will one person at a time. People generally never shove past me though as apparently I look somewhat intimidating even though I'm rather short.</small> ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS. | |||
:::I'm from Northern England, and I always wait instead of asking, unless I am in a hurry, then I will ask "Excuse me, can I just get past please?" I find it exceptionally annoying when on escalators, people very often ignore the sign that says "Stand on the right" and just stand in the middle. The same goes for the flat version you see at airports (which are actually intended to help you go faster if you walk on them, while people just stand on them, watching the people on either side actually walk faster than them). <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Totally with you there. You don't want to walk on the escalator? I'm not judging. Maybe you had a hard day. Maybe you have physical challenges. Maybe you just don't want to and it's none of my business why. It's all good. Just please leave room for people to get by. --] (]) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Well I should say I'm thinking more about people who let's say get on a train and rather than brush past someone to find a seat will wait behind them with an awkward uncomfortable look trying to decide if they should say something or wait and potentially get tossed about by the train. If I'm elsewhere and not in a hurry then I'll just wait politely (especially if there's an older person involved) As for escalators, that's a one-way ticket to be snapped at in DC. When I lived there I would on occasion inform hapless tourists about this before someone else snapped at them. ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Can anyone find the full given names, and a source or the death date, please? What did the honorifics stand for? Do we know how he earned his living? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Are you sure those automated walkways aren't designed to make it easier to move that distance, as opposed to faster ? At my local airport one must walk miles to get from the parking lot to the gate, and when carrying luggage that gets old fast. When you include the elderly or people in poor health, walking that distance might be impossible. With my father, who could walk short distances but not that far, we ended up putting him in a wheelchair, which he found humiliating. ] (]) 22:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:] Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start | |||
:::::I really believe they are for helping you to go faster, because, after all, every airport I have been to has had luggage trolleys (and some even have vehicles you can rent which drive within the airport building itself to help you with your luggage and get to your gate on time). The airports are more concerned with getting people ''out'' of them, rather than having a human traffic jam. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 23:09, 20 February 2015 (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 = | |||
::::::<small>] is such a nightmare it requires going up stairs to get to the terminal. They do have an elevator for wheelchairs, but a scooter wouldn't fit in there. ] (]) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception == | |||
:::::::<small>You must have ''incredibly'' small elevators, mate, if a can't fit in there. :) </small> <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 00:21, 21 February 2015 (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) | |||
::::::::<small>I suspect that Stu might use a motorised scooter and you're about to feel a bit silly, my good Northerner. ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
: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) | |||
:::::::::<small>I do indeed also know what our esteemed friend meant, it's just that 'scooters' is not what we call them. We generally call them 'motorized (wheel)chair' (when it refers to the ones for elderly or handicapped people, which are generally not much bigger than a mountain bike, in terms of length). The ones at airports, where you have a dedicated driver, are, of course, much bigger, as they need to carry luggage, but the drivers ''do know'' the way to the gate, because that is, bizarrely, what their job is. Elevator or no elevator. 'Scooter' means something completely different in Br.Eng., as referred to in my link above. </small> <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I think these religious schisms had nothing to do with the secular political situation. In 330, before Christianity became an established religion that could experience schisms, ] moved the capital of the unitary Roman Empire from Rome to the city of ] and dubbed it the ] – later renamed to Constantinople. During the later periods in which the ] and ] were administered separately, this was not considered a political split but an expedient way of administering a large polity, of which Constantinople remained the capital. So when the Western wing of the Roman Empire fell to the ] and even the later ] disappeared, the Roman Empire, now only administered by the Constantinopolitan court, continued in an unbroken succession from the ] and subsequent ]. --] 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::<small>I assume at my poorly designed airport they would have one scooter take the person to the elevator, put them in a wheelchair for the elevator ride, then put them on another scooter at the other level. Any elderly or handicapped person would find all this jostling quite annoying. (As for how the scooters get to the upper level in the first place, there must be a freight elevator somewhere.) ] (]) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
::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 == | |||
:Not an answer, but some related references: NYC walks faster than London according to this research , and Singapore, Copenhagen and Madrid are the top three fastest walking cities. ] has a nice story about walking speeds in various cities here . ] (]) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) | |||
::Indeed the case. Londoners also have this weird aversion to J-walking. Even when there's no cars for 50m! Absolutely inefficient. Especially when you've an appointment to keep. Odd about the top three though. ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (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) | |||
:] has written about different styles of communication, so this might have a similar name. | |||
:—] (]) 20:38, 20 February 2015 (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) | ||
::] was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though. | |||
:Another option is to not speak, but still "make your presence known", by making loud footsteps as you approach, or maybe rattling your shopping basket/trolley if in the grocery store. ] (]) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::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) | |||
::In cases like that I might wait and if the person looked particularly grouchy I've played ignorant and said, "Terribly sorry, didn't realise you were there." ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::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) | |||
:We have an article on ]. It's a general thing, which envelops waiting for people to move themselves. Not sure if that has a particular name. ] ] 23:03, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:I suppose we should also consider ] as a debatable case. And ] was initially buried in the USA but later reburied in Serbia. He seems to have been the only European monarch who was at one point buried in the USA. --] (]) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] was initially buried at Arlington. ] (]) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: may be useful, if you'd rather not wait, but I don't like the look of the guy on the cover. seems friendlier. ] ] 23:05, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:And of course I should rather think that most monarchs of Hawaii are buried in the USA. ] (]) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --] (]) 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::] answers that question with a definitive "yes, it was". ] (]) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] was initially buried in Cleveland, but then reburied elsewhere in Ohio. --] (]) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::To be specific, All Souls Cemetery in ] according to Smetona's article. ] (]) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: |
:There are a number of Egyptian mummies in US museums (]), but I can't find any that are currently known to be the mummy of a pharaoh. The mummy of ] was formerly in the US, but was returned to Egypt in 2003. --] (]) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
= December 17 = | |||
:::It depends on what we consider conflict. A polite exchange wherein a person is made aware that they're blocking someone's way and the other person is friendly about it is perfectly fine and makes people more likely to be polite in other situations. It's another thing if we're talking about unnecessarily making an ass of oneself or intervening by pointing out someone's attempt to cause conflict is causing a nuisance to other people. For instance, yesterday at a grocery store after I'd checked out, a Norwegian (based on his accent) gentleman was reading a magazine and waiting for a loyalty club card form after having put all his items on the belt. The cashier was doing her thing and no action was required by the man, but this older fellow behind him (who looked like a ] based on his beard actually) said, "You should read that at home" in a voice most grumpy. The Norwegian was surprised and asked the guy to repeat himself and the man repeated what he said twice in an angry voice. I said to the angry fellow twice, "That's really not necessary" with a disgusted look on his face and he was silent afterwards. There was another instance where I had to tell off a lady in a car who was being rude to my friend's mother simply because she was standing in a parking spot to save it for her husband (all of them were our guests and the lady in the car was giving a poor impression of the local hospitality). ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I imagine you're also not fond of the term "]". Not calling you that, but there's no consensus on proper social behaviour. What's good for the goose may be good for the gander, but doesn't work at all for the wolf (or even a busy beaver). "As ] is a group phenomenon, factors such as group size, unanimity, cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinion help determine the level of conformity an individual displays." ] ] 23:24, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800 == | |||
::::Conformity and conflict avoidance are by no means the same. For example, if somebody has purple hair, the conformist would be upset by that and say so, while conflict avoidance would lead to the attitude that "as long as they aren't causing any harm, let them do their own thing". ] (]) 18:21, 23 February 2015 (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) | |||
: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) | |||
::<small>So, despite , you're still just ] ] 23:37, ], ] (UTC) </small> | |||
:] 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. | |||
:::My favourite, which works on escalators, elevators, and in shopping aisles, is "So, I know you are wondering why I brought you here today..." in a really posh British accent. Works every time. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Source . It also has figures by county if you are interested. | |||
:*p.494 38,498,572 acres, i.e. 60,154 square miles | |||
:*p.497 10,674 parishes and parochial chapelries | |||
:*Average 3,607 acres, i.e. 5.64 square miles ] (]) 02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you -- that's a starting point, at least! -- ] (]) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::But regionally variable: | |||
::::What? I don't get that one, ]. "why I brought you here today"??? What is it you are implying in this funny statement? --] (]) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{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.}} | |||
:::::It's sometimes used by managers when starting a staff meeting after a tense silence at the beginning... or at least that is a stereotype. :) <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 17:07, 22 February 2015 (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): | |||
::::::<small>I fail to see how a potentially ] accent could ever be considered posh (one of my least favourite terms along with ''boffin''), my good sir. ] | <sup>]</sup> 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
: | |||
:::::::<small>Oh, dear chap, I do apologize for my failure to inform you that I have spent most of my life abroad, worked mostly with foreigners (as I still do), and therefore do not, in my daily life, actually have a Scouse accent, but only use it when I 'need' it. It is my native dialect, but, believe it or not, there are people who are perfectly capable of ]. </small> <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 21:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:] (]) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== When was the first bat mitzvah? == | |||
::<small>Shock, I have something in common with Stu. “And with just a bit more effort, you could block ''both'' these intersecting passages!” —] (]) 05:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
] 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) | |||
:::What ever happened to just saying pardon me? | |||
: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) | |||
::::That certainly is appropriate when somebody is shopping in a considerate way and just happens to have their cart where you need to go. But then you have people who abandon their cart blocking a main aisle, with no attempt to park it out of the way, before they go get whatever item they forgot. It seems like such inconsiderate behavior demands stronger words. However, I've come to understand that a large portion of these people suffer from a mental deficiency. That is, they don't even think that leaving their cart in the way of everybody else will be inconvenience, because they simply can't ]. Those with autism spectrum disorders are one such group. ] (]) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Parts from Google's translation of ]: | |||
::As early as the early 19th century, in the early days of Reform Judaism, confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls began to be held in which their knowledge of the religion was tested, similar to that practiced among Christians. It spread to the more liberal circles of German Jewry, and by the middle of the century had also begun to be widespread among the Orthodox bourgeoisie. Rabbi Jacob Etlinger of Altona was forced by the community's regulations to participate in such an event in 1867, and published the sermon he had prepared for the purpose later. He emphasized that he was obligated to do so by law, and that Judaism did not recognize that the principles of the religion should be adopted in such a public declaration, since it is binding from birth. However, as part of his attempt to stop the Reform, he supported a kind of parallel procedure that was intended to take place exclusively outside the synagogue. | |||
::The idea of confirmation was not always met with resistance, especially with regard to girls: the chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of French Jews, Shlomo Zalman Ullmann, permitted it for both sexes in 1843. In 1844, confirmation for young Jews was held for the first time in Verona, Italy. In the 1880s, Rabbi Zvi Hermann Adler agreed to the widespread introduction of the ceremony, after it had become increasingly common in synagogues, but refused to call it 'confirmation'. In 1901, Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor, cantor in Alexandria, permitted it for both boys and girls, inspired by what was happening in Italy. Other rabbis initially ordered a more conservative event. | |||
::At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude towards the bat mitzvah party was reserved, because it was sometimes an attempt to imitate symbols drawn from the confirmation ceremony, and indeed there were rabbis, such as Rabbi Aharon Volkin, who forbade the custom on the grounds of gentile laws, or who treated it with suspicion, such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who in a 1950s recantation forbade holding an event in the synagogue because it was "a matter of authority and a mere vanity...there is no point and no basis for considering it a matter of a mitzvah and a mitzvah meal". The Haredi community also expressed strong opposition to the celebration of the bat mitzvah due to its origins in Reform circles. In 1977, Rabbi Yehuda David Bleich referred to it as one of the "current problems in halakhah", noting that only a minority among the Orthodox celebrate it and that it had spread to them from among the Conservatives. | |||
::On the other hand, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, rabbis began to encourage holding a Bat Mitzvah party for a daughter, similar to a party that is customary for a son, with the aim of strengthening observance of the mitzvot among Jewish women. | |||
: --] 11:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you! Surprising how recent it is. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= |
= December 18 = | ||
== Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century == | |||
== Islamic ruling infertile woman vs. fertile man and fertile woman vs. infertile man married or single == | |||
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) | |||
Is there a Islamic ruling whether a married infertile man or single infertile man can have sexual intercourse with a single or married fertile woman and also whether a married or single infertile woman can have sexual intercourse with a single or married fertile man? Please no discussion, just answer and thanks. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: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) | |||
:It will depend on the sect of Islam. Generally speaking, however, infertility does not matter, and sex before marriage is generally perceived as ] - forbidden. Adultery is considered as a sin, and is generally treated with the death penalty under ]. You will have to expand on which type of Islamic ruling you are asking about, as there are many different types. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 01:14, 21 February 2015 (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) | |||
*Misplaced Pages has an article titled ] which may be of use to answering your question. I would read the article, and then follow references made by the article to more reading within and outside Misplaced Pages, in order to answer the question for yourself. --]] 02:08, 21 February 2015 (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) | |||
== Real estate customers == | |||
:::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) | |||
== Intolerance by D. W. Griffith == | |||
When a real estate broker facilitates a sale between a house buyer and a house seller, (a) does the real estate broker serve the buyer (by negotiating a low price for the house), (b) does the real estate broker serve the seller (by negotiating a high price for the house), or (c) does the real estate broker serve both the buyer and the seller (by negotiating a compromised price for the house)? <br> | |||
—] (]) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Why did ] make the film ] after making the very popular and racist film ]? What did he want to convey? ] (]) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Neither and both and all three. Both the buyer and the seller can hire a ] to represent their interests, and the two brokers negotiate the best deal for their own client, and then each take their cut of the sale. There are also dual agents, though these are rare, and in some cases, may be against the rules, depending on jurisdiction. That's because both the ] and the seller's agent each have a ] responsibility to their client, and the buyer and seller have exactly competing interests. If only one of the parties has an agent (which is actually pretty common, perhaps the most common arrangement) it is more common to have a seller's agent; buyers are more likely to act on their own than the sellers, but there are still plenty of transactions involving two agents. There are also situations known as "FSBO" (often pronounced "fizzbo" in certain dialects) or ] situations, but that gets tricky, because the seller has to hire all of the lawyers and inspectors and file all the paperwork themselves. The seller's agent usually does all that dirty work, which is what they get their 6% commission for. Buyer's agents (which are a fairly recent phenomenon) typically get a 3% commission rather than 6% because they don't have to handle all the legal rigmarole the seller's agent does. --]] 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The lead of our article states that, in numerous interviews, Griffith made clear that the film was a rebuttal to his critics and he felt that they were, in fact, the intolerant ones. --] 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::<small>I wonder if '']'' was written by a real estate agent, as one of the characters is a real estate agent, and another has an alter-ego clown named "Fizzbo". ] (]) 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
::<small>For not tolerating his racism? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::Precisely. Griffith thought he was presenting the truth, however unpopular, and that the criticism was meant to stifle his voice, not because the opinions he expressed were wrong but because they were unwelcome. --] 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Term for awkward near-similarity == | |||
:While practices vary from state to state, in the United States there typically is a listing broker, who has a relationship with the seller, and a selling broker, who has a relationship with the buyer (or, often, buyers) and takes the buyer to see houses listed by a variety of sellers. Except in the somewhat unusual case of the buyer's agent, however, both the listing broker and the selling broker are deemed to represent the seller. In practice, while the listing broker is fairly focused on getting the highest price, the selling broker's strongest incentive is to promote the consummation of a transaction, with price a secondary consideration. In addition, notwithstanding that their legal obligation is to the seller, selling brokers often feel a considerable degree of loyalty to the buyer with whom they have a relationship. ] (]) 03:56, 23 February 2015 (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) | |||
= February 22 = | |||
:The uncanniness of the ] would be a specific subclass of this. --] 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== What is this painting? == | |||
== Yearbooks == | |||
This is the best shot I can find, but it displays behind the bar at a renovated church in Southampton, UK? | |||
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) | |||
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186299-d732578-i35680787-The_Vestry_Restaurant_Bar-Southampton_Hampshire_England.html#35680787 | |||
:It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
--] (]) 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever. --] 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'']'', by ], currently on display in the ]. ] (]) 12:46, 22 February 2015 (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) | |||
:] ] (]) 12:41, 22 February 2015 (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. ] (]) 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 = | |||
== Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source? == | |||
Hypothetically and in theory, if every country had a certain amount of money and more money was made so that the amount of money per person was made exactly the same and the amount of money in the world was doubled, and all prices for things were frozen, would inflation still occur? And why? I know this would never work in reality and is flawed in many ways but would it work in theory? ] (]) 12:37, 22 February 2015 (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) | |||
:What would be the mechanism by which prices were kept the same? See this discussion of government price-fixing: . ] (]) 13:01, 22 February 2015 (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)? == | |||
:We also have an article ], but it could use some loving attention. ] (]) 13:04, 22 February 2015 (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". | |||
::You're basically describing the United States at the time of the western gold and silver strikes—because the US had a ] gold and silver standard, adding more gold and silver to circulation literally increased the money supply. As more and more money goes into circulation, its value goes down, so prices rise to compensate, causing inflation. If (as you postulate) prices were frozen, then with real-terms prices falling (as money is worth less), there would be less incentive to produce goods. Assuming a relatively free market in other respects (e.g., people not being forced at gunpoint to keep productivity levels up), you would get shortages accompanied by either rationing or queueing. In the real world in this situation, some of the money flows overseas (think all those buildings owned by oil-rich countries), which in the short term stabilises the economies of both the newly-rich country and those countries without oil/gold/diamonds etc who are suddenly relatively poorer. ] (]) 13:09, 22 February 2015 (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? | |||
:::Yes, inflation would occur by definition; you've described a situation in which "more money was made", and that's inflation. ] (]) 15:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play: | |||
::::I wouldn't say that is inflation, but rather it's one factor which causes inflation. If there were strong enough factors fighting inflation at the same time, it would be possible to increase the money supply without any inflation. ] (]) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
In Act 1, Scene 2 Sir John Hume and the Duchess of Gloucester are talking about using Margery Jordan "the cunning witch of Eye" and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, to raise a spirit that will answer the Duchess's questions. It is clear Hume is being paid by the Duke of Suffolk to entrap the Duchess. His own motivation is not political but simple lucre. | |||
:::::You're inflating the money supply: that ''is'' inflation. If your population and economy grow rapidly fast while the money supply is inflated very slowly, you might end up having simultaneous inflation and falling prices. ] (]) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
In Act 1, Scene 4 the witch Margery Jordan, John Southwell and Sir John Hume, the two priests, and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, conjure a demon (Asnath) in front of the Duchess of Gloucester in order that she may ask him questions about the fate of various people, and they all get caught and arrested by the Duke of York and his men. (Hume works for Suffolk and Cardinal Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, not for York, so it is not through Hume that York knows of these goings on, but York on his part was keeping a watch on the Duchess) | |||
::::::"In economics, ] is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. ] (]) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Act 2, Scene 3 King Henry: (to Margery Jordan, John Southwell, Sir John Hume, and Roger Bolingbroke) "You four, from hence to prison back again; / From thence, unto the place of execution. / The witch in Smithfield shall be burned to ashes, / And you three shall be strangled on the gallows." | |||
:::::::That definition appears to conflate the symptom with the (presumed) cause. —] (]) 07:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I assume that your tabbing was off, and you meant to say that about ]'s definition. My def comes straight from our article, and says nothing about expanding the money supply. ] (]) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:John Home or Hume (Home and Hume are pronounced identically) was ]'s confessor. According to and "Home, who had been indicted only for having knowledge of the activities of the others, was pardoned and continued in his position as canon of Hereford. He died in 1473." He does not seem to have been Sir John. I'm sure someone who knows more than me will be along soon. ] (]) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I'm more careful about my tabbing than many around here. I assume you'll agree that we must be wary about relying on a Misplaced Pages article as a final authority. —] (]) 08:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::At this period "Sir" (and "Lady") could still be used as a vague title for people of some status, without really implying they had a knighthood. ] (]) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Identically /hjuːm/ (HYOOM), to be clear. ] ] 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Oh, and the '']'' is Henry Sixt Part II, not Part I! We also have articles about ] and ], the Witch of Eye. ] (]) 16:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. I corrected it now. ] (]) 20:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::There's also an article for a ]. In Shakespeare he is "John Southwell". The name "John Southwell" does appear in the text of the play itself (it is mentioned by Bolingbroke). I haven't checked if the quarto and the folio differ on the name. His dates seem to be consistent with this episode and ] does refer to the other priest as "Thomas Southwell". But nothing is mentioned in the article ] itself, so that article may be about some other priest named Thomas Southwell. In any case ] points out that only Roger Bolingbroke and Margery Jourdemayne were executed in connection with this affair. Shakespeare has them all executed. He must have been in a bad mood when he wrote that passage. Either that, or he just wanted to keep things simple. ] (]) 11:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think that may well be our Southwell, according to "</nowiki> the person <nowiki></nowiki> of Syn Stevynnys in Walbroke, whyche that was one of the same fore said traytours <nowiki></nowiki>, deyde in the Toure for sorowe.]" The ''Chronicle of Gregory'', written by ] is ] (]) 12:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Some experienced editor may then want to add these facts to his article, possibly using the Chronicle of Gregory as a source. ] (]) 12:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 22 = | |||
:] don't work in the long term, for several reasons: | |||
== Mike Johnson == | |||
:1) Changes in the relative cost of items. For example, digital camera prices are coming down relative to film cameras, and any price controls that set them at the same price would lead to cheating (selling digital cameras cheaper). | |||
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) | |||
:2) Changes in technology. Cars, for example, are not the same as they were 50 years ago, with all sorts of new features that didn't exist then. So, any price controls set back then really wouldn't apply now. | |||
: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) | |||
:3) Uncontrollable inputs. Farmers in particular have to deal with changing weather, etc., so the price to produce a given amount of food can go up. If they can no longer sell that food at a profit, they will go out of business and a food shortage will result. | |||
:: 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) | |||
:4) Changes in the popularity of items. Lobster used to be considered food for poor people, then it became fashionable. If the price stayed the same, the natural stocks would have been wiped out due to over-fishing (and it wouldn't have been profitable to farm them). It's only the high price that prevents this. (I'd eat lobster every day if I could afford it.) | |||
::: He may also have just come from, or be shortly going to, some (not necessarily religious) event held in a synagogue, where he would wear it for courtesy. I would do the same, and have my (non-Jewish) grandfather's kippah, which he wore for this purpose not infrequently, having many Jewish friends. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: I assume you mis-spoke: ''to show his support for ... anti-semitism''. ] (]) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:What really happens under price controls is that they need to constantly adjust the "fixed prices", which follow the natural changes in prices (including inflation), just in steps instead of continuously. ] (]) 15:40, 22 February 2015 (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) | |||
== Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol == | |||
Inflation is not a situation in which more money is made. That’s simply an increase in the money supply. Inflation is when a specifically defined basket of goods and services costs more in a subsequent time period than it did in the previous time period. While that may be facilitated by a rise in the money supply, more money in circulation is not, ''per se'', inflation. '''Nyttend''' uses the term inflating the money supply to equate an increase in the money supply with an increase in prices; the two are not the same.] (]) 04:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Who was Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol? There is only one reference online ("", 1869), and that has no further details. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:No, that's not what I said: you couldn't have "simultaneous inflation and falling prices" if increases in the money supply and prices were equated. Inflation is the process of increasing the money supply, regardless of what else happens; of course it's normally rising prices, but not absolutely necessarily. I was slightly wrong, but not badly; let me quote ]. ''Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. spec. An undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to the goods available for purchase; (in lay use) an inordinate rise in prices.'' So it's not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand. Let's not stoop to the "lay use": we need to use the educated terminology, i.e. money supply's being increased faster than money demand. ] (]) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:After that search engine I used insisted I was looking for a Chauveau I finally located Joseph Marie Chauveau - So the J M ''Thouveau'' item from must be one of the ] produced by that old fashioned hand-written communication they had in the past. --] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Of interest that other notice . The hand-written text scribbled on the portrait stands as 'Eveque de Sebastopolis'. Pierre-Joseph Chauveau probably, now is also mentioned as Pierre-Joseph in ..even though, Lady Amherst's Pheasant is referred, in the same, through an other missionary intermediary: . --] (]) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Also in . Full texts are not accessible though it seems there is three times the same content in three different but more or less simultaneously published editions. ] (]) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It didn't say "not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand", and I should point out that increasing the money supply faster than the money demand is also not guaranteed to raise prices, as other factors also control prices. That seems like a poor definition, since it defines inflation as two different, and at times contradictory, ways. This is what happens when non-economists define economics terms. Look it up in an economics text and you will only find the increase in the price of goods and services. Here's some: , . ] (]) 20:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::There is a stub at ] (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As '''StuRat''' already pointed out, "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. (Trust me? I'm an economist!) ] (]) 09:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: {{Ping|Askedonty}} Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error. | |||
:: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you. Those results were in fact detailed enough that we may even document the circumstances associated with Mgr. Chauveau writing the original letter to the Society. recounts his buying of specimens in the country, then his learning about the interest for the species in British diplomatic circles about. The French text is available, with the ] servers not under excessive stress, in ''Bulletin de la Société zoologique d'acclimatation'' 2°sér t. VII aka "1870" p.502 at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb345084433/date; an other account mentioning the specific species is to be found p.194 . --] (]) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 23 = | |||
== Brazil-Portugal during the Spanish American wars of independence == | |||
== London Milkman photo == | |||
What activities did Rio de Janeiro conduct during the wars of independence, i.e. what relations did it have with the rebels, with high Spanish officials, what border incidents occurred, etc.? ] doesn't mention Brazil (aside from remarks that its independence occurred in the same context as the Spanish colonies) or Portugal outside the footnotes. I'm aware of the ] and related disputes, but that's all I can remember hearing about. ] (]) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Brazil's path to independence actually occurs in a different context than did most of the Spanish colonies. The events that led to the Brazilian independence are wrapped up in the ], specifically the ] where the Portuguese monarchy transferred their capital to ]. Rio de Janeiro remained the capital of Portugal until the ] back in European Portugal caused the King of Portugal, ], to return to Europe. Shortly thereafter his son, ] declared Brazil independent, and himself a constitutional monarch as ]. Thus, while most of the Spanish colonies became independent through Republican revolutions, the ] occurred due to a dynastic split in the ]. Shortly after Brazilian independence, a small portion of southern Brazil (which was Spanish speaking, unlike the rest of the country) became independent as the Republic of Uruguay in the ]. Other than the ] which led to Uruguayan independence, I'm not sure that Brazil played a major role in the independence movements in the other South American nations. --]] 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, I was asking a different kind of question. What relationships were there between Rio and the various colonial and anticolonial forces of the Spanish areas during the wars of independence? Either they had some sort of relationships (diplomats here and there, border crossings, approaches to dealing with Indians), or these relationships were absent, and historians knowledgeable on the subject could presumably write a good deal about it. Did they generally have relations with the rebels, e.g. co-maintaining border crossings, exchanging diplomats, and recognising each other's customs officers, or did they generally work only with the Spanish, or were there significant variations from place to place and time to time? I'd just like to know what routine parts P-B played, if any, in the long period of warfare. ] (]) 03:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::You may find some of the machinations of ], Queen Consort of Portugal and Brazil, to be interesting. --]] 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::], a British naval officer, was involved in the Wars of Independence for Brazil, Chile, and Peru. He may provide some connection, diplomatically or militarily, between the nations. --]] 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: I did, and ] too. Thanks! ] (]) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
I am writing a rough draft of ''Delivery After Raid'', also known as ''The London Milkman'' in my ]. I’m still trying to verify basic information, such as the original publication of the photo. It was allegedly first published on October 10, 1940, in ''Daily Mirror'', but it’s behind a paywall in British Newspaper Archive, but from the previews I can see, I don’t know think the photo is there. Does anyone know who originally published it or publicized it, or which British papers carried it in the 1940s? For a photo that’s supposed to be famous, it’s almost impossible to find anything about it before 1998. ] (]) 04:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Central African Republic Constitution == | |||
: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) | |||
How many constitutions has the Central African Republic had, and in what years were they promulgated? Also, I would like to know when any of them might have been suspended, and if so, for how long? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "] Archive", which might mean it was in ]. ] ] 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:See ]. In chronological order: | |||
::It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. ] (]) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*1 December 1958 (]) | |||
:::You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? ] ] 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*13 August 1960 (]) | |||
::::No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. ] (]) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* (] as President) | |||
:::::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) | |||
*4 December 1976 (Bokassa as Emperor) | |||
::::::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) | |||
* (Dacko) | |||
:::::::Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton. ] ] 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* (] as military ruler) | |||
:Not in the ''Daily Mirror'' of Thursday 10 October 1940. ] (]) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*29 November 1986 (Kolingba as President) | |||
::{{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) | |||
*14 January 1995 (]) | |||
:::a lot of searches suggest it was the ''Daily Mail''. ] (]) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*5 December 2004 (]) | |||
:::::{{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) | |||
] is therefore "interim president" at the moment, but with no actual constituional documents to support her (unless it's the 2004 constitution). The state is described as a "provisional republic" in our main article. ] (]) 22:45, 22 February 2015 (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) | |||
= February 23 = | |||
== Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman? == | |||
== Mankind given dominion over the world == | |||
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) | |||
In the Bible, mankind is allowed to rule over the whole world by God. In which religions do god/gods specifically give mankind dominion over the world? Are any of these religions completely unrelated to Judaism? --] (]) 08:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at ], a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later ] was the United Provinces, ] the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. ] (]) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Not in Buddhism/Hinduism, can't speak for the rest.] (]) 12:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that ] was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. ] (]) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I've only ever seen that phrase written in the Old Testament. Also, bear in mind, many religions don't have gods, in the sense of 'the one and only creator of the world'. I think that only Abrahamic religions only have one god, whilst the rest which have gods generally have a pantheon of gods, all with complex relationships. Buddhism doesn't have any. Many shamanistic and animalistic religions don't have gods, just spirits. The concept of a monotheistic religion with only a single god is, as far as I can recall, purely Abrahamic. As a side note, even the Ancient Greeks knew the concept of infinity, as they have stories about Titans who existed before the Greek pantheon of Gods existed, to (sort of) explain how all these gods turned up (because all the Titans were in never-ending conflict and ended up killing each other). <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as ], that's for sure! ] (]) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I think you mean ] rather than ]. ] ] 04:23, ], ] (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) | |||
:::See ]. ] and ] are of at least comparable age to the Israelite religion, and relegate other spirits to roles comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions. ], ], ], and (debatably) ] postdate Islam, but are not identified as Abrahamic (though ] was definitely influenced by Christianity). ] and ] also blurs boundaries between monotheism and hierarchical polytheism, resulting in some sects of ], Hinduism (especially ]), and traditional African religions (particularly worship of ], ], and ]) as being at least complementary to monotheism (again, by framing any other figures in the pantheon as occupying a role comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions, or arguing that ancestor spirits simply affirm the immortality of the soul, not polytheism). There were also the ], who (like with the Zoroastrians) scholars are split on whether their monotheism was influenced by Judaism, influenced Judaism, or evolved in parallel. Over all, the Roman empire would have become monotheistic thanks to ], the cult of ], and ]; even if Constantine or even Jesus had never been born. | |||
:::::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) | |||
:::As for other religions holding humanity being in charge of the world, ] sort of said that, but in a more cosmic sense. How unrelated it is to Judaism is a matter of debate, but most secular scholars I've read tend to favor the idea that Hermeticism influenced Judaism (]) and Christianity (]), while only occasionally grabbing some names from Judaism just to be trendy (such as incorporating ] and ] into the ], but favoring a more Neoplatonic ] monotheism). Hermeticism saw humanity as the shattered, scattered, and ignorant remains of the nature-creating ], however (though, unlike many forms of Gnosticism, it didn't see the material world as evil so much as a foreign land). ] (]) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver ], whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country <small> was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --] (]) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
] | |||
:In Caesar's '']'', the Belgians ('']'') were separated from the Germans ('']'') by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands. --] 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. ] (]) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Indigenous territory/Indian reservations == | |||
:According to ] (]), | |||
:<blockquote>God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."</blockquote> | |||
:—] (]) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::That "us" thing, which implies "gods" rather than "God", historically has required jumping through some theological hoops to explain. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Even though I acknowledge that it was a historical reference to ], "angels" is still a simple enough resolution. Still, attempts to use the ] to explain it while trying to avoid tritheism are not as simple. ] (]) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::(ec) Translating אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) in Genesis 1 as "gods", rather than "God" is far more difficult to defend grammatically however, because every time it occurs (31 times in this chapter) it is accompanied by a singular verb. And even comparing verse 26 with the next verse shows that the meaning is singular. - ] (]) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (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> | |||
::Yes, that's exactly the verse I was referring to. I have another question: in which other religions is mankind specifically said to be in the image of God/gods? Of course anthropomorphic gods are as common as dust, but I'm curious if other religious texts make it as explicit as the Bible. --] (]) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry, make ''what'' as explicit as in the Bible? I don't understand this last question. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::That humans look like gods, and were made to be that way. --] (]) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Are you looking for non-Abrahamic parallels to the '']'', or would you count religions that believe humanity is descended from the gods or patterned after some cosmic man (e.g. ], ], or ])? Because the Imago Dei concept is firmly rooted in Genesis and would only be found in religions influenced by it. As for the broader scope for examining religions that affirm a divinity-of-humanity, it would probably be easier to list those that reject the idea (and even then, there'd likely be exceptions once the religion got over a certain size). This could also open up opinionated debate on which religions treat people better, something the refdesk is not meant for. Off the top of my head, the ] had currents in it that depicted humanity as the undignified slaves of the gods, while some of the ] view humanity as just another consciousness that needs to either be ] or ] -- ''but'' some forms of the Canaanite religion depicted cities (and so its citizens) as the brides of their patron god, and some Indian religions regard humanity as the minimum form of life capable of achieving enlightenment (and so comparable to the gods in that respect). ] (]) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (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) | |||
::::::Interesting. Imago Dei is only found in Abrahamic religions? I would have thought that human arrogance and ] would make it a recurring theme in many religions, but I guess I'm too cynical. --] (]) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
= December 24 = | |||
:Scientists would probably say that ''microbes'' actually have dominion over the globe. The writers of the Bible obviously knew nothing about microbes. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Testicles in art == | |||
::That's a bit like saying the people of North Korea have dominion over their government. They're much more numerous than the government, but they can't act together in a meaningful way. --] (]) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:] | |||
:::That's not a valid comparison. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
::::<small>That's not a clear refutation. —] (]) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's '']'' (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. ] (]) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the ] (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the ], through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! ] (]) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The article you're looking for is ]. ] (]) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:And maybe the ]. ]|] 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:], somewhat well-known in the West through ]. ] ] 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation? == | |||
== How many copies of 'Revolution' by Russell Brand have been sold worldwide to date? == | |||
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 can't seem to find any sales figures online, are they usually not public or am I just poor at searching? ] (]) 10:58, 23 February 2015 (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). | |||
:Sales figures are often publicized for best seller lists, otherwise often not. Best I could find was these figures from shortly after the book was released . Amazon has some info too, they say it was a "national best seller" and was at one point their number 1 best seller in "political humor" . ] (]) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (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. | |||
== Hatred against Israel == | |||
Also do you know of other such situations in European history? | |||
Why do Palestinians along with Most of the rest of the Middle East hate Israel so much? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:It's extremely complicated. To begin with not all Palestinians do hate Israel, and of the ones who do many also hate the Palestinian authorities too. Other countries in the Middle East also have quite complicated relationships with Israel, the Israeli government, the Israeli people, and the Jewish Israeli people (all four of those groups are different). But a short and very limited answer would be that the establishment of Israel in the Middle East back in 1948 transplanted a lot of Jews and Europeans into a very Muslim and Arab area, and that has caused tension ever since. Additionally, the manner in which almost every action from 1930 in the Middle East has been done has caused tensions too. Whether one side is to blame or not, and if so which side, is for you to decide for yourself. But suffice to say I'd start with the WP article on ] and then read it and linked articles before you form a concrete judgement. There has been an enormous amount of fault on both sides: some people think one side's actions are justifiable, others think the other side's are, some think neither. As for what we do now to solve it, if you figure that one out you deserve (and will win) a Nobel Peace Prize. ] (]) 11:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:It's only reasonable that a people under a brutal military occupation hate their oppressors. The actual question is why do Israelis hate Palestinians so much. The answer for that begins with many Jewish Israelis believing that their god gave them all of ] and they are unhappy that those native to the land are still there. This issue for some turned into racist indoctrination, militarism, and jingoism for most. Arab states, and other Palestine supporters around the world, have offered to normalize relations with Israel if only Israel would return her military back to Israel. ] (]) 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Or, more pragmatically, they're weary of those self-same Palestinians blowing them up. --]] 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Or sending their rockets to land harmlessly in open spaces, as the majority do. But yeah, it's still a bit of an annoyance firing up the jets for the killing and demolition, when the ] does kill an Israeli. ] ] 04:37, ], ] (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)? | |||
:Have you read our article on ]? ] (]) 20:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:As Israel is one of America's ], a lot of ] also rubs off of them. Goes way beyond Arabs and Jews. Without that rub, the sentiment would be far more local, and only pop up in ''relevant'' online comment boxes. ] ] 04:32, ], ] (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) | |||
== State of American academia and universities == | |||
::By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". ] (]) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As a sidenote, the waters of this question are somewhat muddied by the fact that ] as we know them were not (even confining ourselves to Europe) always a thing; they arose at different times in different places and in different classes. Amongst the ruling classes, people were often 'surnamed' after their territorial possessions (which could have been acquired through marriage or other means) rather than their parental name(s). Also, in some individual family instances (in the UK, at any rate), a man was only allowed to inherit the property and/or title of/via a female heiress whom they married on the condition that they adopted her family name rather than her, his, so that the propertied/titled family name would be continued. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 13:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In the old style of dynastic reckoning, Elizabeth II would have been transitional from Saxe-Coburg to Glucksberg, and even under the current UK rules, descendants of Prince Philip (and only those descendants) who need surnames use ]. -- ] (]) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
So there's , which seems to be reliable and comes from a very professional looking site that portrays American universities and academics in a quite negative light. According to the article, these universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma instead of the teaching of facts, and the people who study and teach there are highly dogmatic. Is this article accurate in its portrayal of the state of American academia? Will having courses teach about conservatism really alleviate these issues? ] (]) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:If you hold that American universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma, why would you believe that having courses teach about conservatism would help things? Teaching something from a negative perspective generally won't help its cause, after all. What makes that question come to mind? To your first question, it's well established that American universities are generally left of ordinary Americans, or that ordinary Americans are generally right of American universities, or however you want to put it. ] (]) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::University students are not stupid. If a professor is slanting his lectures towards one political extreme or the other, the students will quickly become aware of the professor's bias, and take it in stride. Some (the better students) will openly challenge the professor when he/she starts to spout dogma. Others will be less brave, and will ''pretend'' to adopt the teacher's bias (in the mistaken idea that doing so will earn them a better grade). But in either case, the students will understand that the professor ''is'' biased, and take that bias into account as they learn. | |||
::Of course the really good teachers (whatever their politics may be) teach their students how to ''think for themselves'', and actually ''encourage'' their students to always question what they are told. ] (]) 13:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The first thing to note is that the website where this article is posted is that of a journal that is generally right-wing in its stance, and it is clear from an inspection of the list of the journal's contributors that some of them are not thinkers in the mainstream of the evidence-based academic community. Some of the contributors to the journal are from what we might call the "academically respectable" right-wing, but some others fall into the category of "clearly nuts". It's also worth noting that the article's author is certainly from the right-of-centre, but that he appears to adopt stances that are reasonably well grounded in reality. The article itself isn't an academic article, and relies largely on anecdote rather than quantified facts, and should thus be taken as a piece of rhetoric in favour of its author's personal views. | |||
:As for your interpretation of the article, it seems to me you have misread it in at least two places. First, the author doesn't suggest that all universities are "hotbeds for leftist dogma", but that some departments within some (perhaps many, though he doesn't really say) universities are largely dominated by a particular kind of thought, which he characterises as a "grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege". Second, the author was not hired to teach "about conservatism" - he is quite explicit about this, and made it a condition of his hiring that he simply taught courses like any other academic - and his article explicitly gives reasons why teaching courses such as "conservative studies" would, in his view, be unwise and counterproductive. | |||
:However, with these caveats made, it is possible to make some useful comments. First, it is not difficult to find working papers and professional publications that provide evidence in support of the general contention that academics, as a group, tend to adopt more "left wing" positions than the population at large. (For example, .) However, I wasn't able to find evidence that corrects these results for raw intelligence/level of education (though this may be available); it may simply be that more intelligent people, or people with more education, tend to adopt more left-wing positions irrespective of whether they are academics or not. I vaguely recall reading research that suggests that the higher the average education in a state, the more likely that state is to vote Democratic in a US presidential election. For example, economic theories suggest that it is certainly the case that several important social goods can best be delivered through a "left wing" solution, and these theories tend to be well-supported by empirical evidence, so a reasonably well-educated economist is likely to appear "left wing" in respect of these issues. I imagine that the same is true in other disciplines. I should say, for clarity, that in this paragraph I have used the phrase "left wing" to refer to what we might call the "academically respectable" left-wing - that is, people who have reached their conclusions on the basis of careful consideration of observable facts and soundly argued theory. | |||
:Second, however, is what I believe is the substance of your concern, and indeed the principal concern of the article: what we might call the "modern left wing". The article suggests that this kind of "left wing", described as those "whose main focus is the holy trinity of race, class, and gender, along with their close correlates, post-colonialist, postmodern, and post-structural analysis", and whose principal goals seem to be to enforce a particular set of political positions and require a particular set of personal beliefs from the population (both academic and general), is becoming increasingly dominant in many non-STEM departments in many universities. Your question is whether the article is correct in its assertion. The best answer we have at the moment seems to be "we don't know". I have not been able to find any empirical evidence to support the anecdotal contents of the article. This is not to say that the article is wrong, but just that we don't have evidence one way or the other. | |||
:That said, I can give you a couple of observations from my own experience, which is in the UK. I have the strong impression that there are some departments at some universities where free academic discourse must be handled with great care. For example, I am aware of a research project at a leading university in London that was quietly re-purposed when it became clear from preliminary results that members of different ethnic groups seemed to have slightly different language capabilities at a neurological level. It was deemed unwise to present the results without providing a carefully-written "context", so that nobody could take offence. Language, and the ability to avoid upsetting particular interest groups, was important. Contrariwise, I am aware of a UK classicist whose facility with Latin and Greek is, I am told by experts in that area whose opinion I trust, noticeably poorer than might be expected, but who has nevertheless built a career for herself by concentrating on "classical studies" with a particular emphasis on the position of women and other politically disadvantaged groups in the classical era. She has, I suppose, the ability to say the "right" thing. These are, if you like, anecdotes that convey a general impression of what can and cannot be said, and who does well in such an environment. That said, I should stress that "grievance academics" are much less common in the UK than they seem to be in the US. All of this paragraph, though, is just anecdote. The truth is that we don't yet have real evidence one way or the other. | |||
:Returning finally to your last question, the article itself argues against the teaching of "conservative studies", taking the view that conservatism "is a point of view or disposition that informs nearly all the traditional disciplines". That is, it's a way of thinking, and not a subject in itself. This is not to say that particular "conservative" doctrines can't be studied. For example, some academics study the sociological aspects of ] - why, for example, do certain kinds of people subscribe to ], ] or the ], even in the face of good evidence against these approaches? These studies, however, fall into the normal realm of academic research, and thus don't meet the requirements of an unbiased taught course on "conservative studies". | |||
:My apologies for the long response. I think the short answer to your underlying question, though, is probably "we don't know whether the article is accurate, because it cites anecdotes rather than data, and we don't yet have enough real data". ] (]) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Since educational generally pays less than other business opportunities available to someone with that background, yet has the potential to do more societal good, academia often attracts more altruistic individuals. You can judge for yourself whether such people are more likely to be liberal or conservative. | |||
:As for a correlation in lack of education and conservatism, the cause and effect might be reversed. That is, once conservatives get control over the school curriculum, they set about dismantling anything that might cause one to question a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution has to go, of course, but all science is a threat, since geology can teach that some rocks are billions of years old, astronomy and physics that the stars and subatomic particles are, biology can teach that dinosaurs once existed millions of years ago, anthropology teaches that Neanderthals and other hominids once existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, etc. ] (]) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:At least one scientist has claimed that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives . So that might explain why many academics tend to be liberal. ] I've spent almost 20 years in academia, never once met a dogmatic professor, conservative or liberal. ] is pretty much the antithesis of ], so we tend to not promote people who rely on dogma. ] (]) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::This is a good point. In what I said earlier, I was using the phrase "academically respectable" as more-or-less a synonym for "undogmatic". In most areas of economics (and, I suppose, many other areas of the humanities) there are legitimate ranges of interpretation for many topics, and this is reflected in the positions that people adopt. For example, there is a legitimate debate on how all sorts of things should be paid for, with some people adopting positions that we might call "left wing" and others being more "right wing". The "academically respectable" person, whether left wing or right wing, should be able to change his mind if new evidence is introduced into the debate. (I should say that I personally ''hate'' it when someone forces me to move to a new position; my tactic is generally to change the subject to something else for several days, then quietly take up the new position when I think nobody's watching, possibly with a brief sentence along the lines of "however, bearing in mind X's results, we may also wish to consider...".) ] (]) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:In the US in particular, there is a certain anti-intellectualism en-vogue with conservatives, partially because modern science does not agree with religious views (see ]) or economic/ecological wishful thinking (see ]), and partially because cultural icons are being challenged in academia (see ] or even ]). Not all of this is a ''necessary'' alignment, but it is the current situation. --] (]) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, that's a good point. We have an article on ] that has some good info and refs, though it is currently lacking a section on 21st century USA. ] (]) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
*There is a number of things to note about this article. It's clearly written from a humanities perspective. In proper research and teaching (the sciences), politics is largely irrelevant at the university level (politically motivated government spendings decision are very different of course). Secondly, of course (and as mentioned above), demographical difference to the general population make a massive difference. Amongst the students, average age is going to be lower, and it's well known that the politics move right with age on average. Further demographical difference, amongst both the students and staff, you would expect a higher than average intelligence (well, in the sciences at least), so it's entirely logical that they are more left-wing than the general population. All things to take into account! The exact same things are seen here in the UK and on the wider continent. ] (]) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
*], but its very definition, is the political stance that seeks to maintain existing cultural, social, and political structures as ''status quo''. Academia, by definition, is the pursuit of new knowledge. Insofar as new knowledge --> new understandings --> new paradigms --> new ways to deal with the world, there's a natural tension between conservatism and academia for that very reason. Academia which says "We've looked at things in deep detail, and everything you already know about the world is exactly what we've already thought", and which does that forever, is not very realistic. Which is not to say that academics cannot be politically conservative, or deeply religious, or anything else, for that matter. But the tension between a philosophy of perpetual ''status quo'' and the pursuit of change has some natural tensions... --]] 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::This is a very good point, I feel. To be a conservative is to always be on the losing side. None of what we would regard as the major positive social changes in our society over the past hundred years has been a conservative cause. Conservatives always lose: extension of the franchise to non-property owners, votes for women, improved civil rights for people who aren't white, letting women have control over their own bodies, the elimination of the death penalty (at least in Europe, if not yet in the US), and improved rights for lesbians and gay men - all were opposed by conservatives. I can understand that this must be very uncomfortable for conservatives, particularly in times of economic stress when it's convenient to find some group of people to blame for their discomfort. I don't think you can be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and an academic, because the academic mind has to be open to change. ] (]) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Not necessarily. There's no inherent ''contradiction'' between political conservatism and academia, only a ''tension''. It isn't as though political conservatives have to be "wrong" or on the "losing side". The one does not cause the other like hitting a baseball causes it to fly in a specific direction and speed. It's merely something we need to be cognizant of when looking at the situation. --]] 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::We may be using the word "conservative" in different ways. In my comment I meant it in the sense of "being unwilling to change under any circumstances" - this is why I added the qualifying "dyed-in-the-wool". This is dogmatism, and I feel is entirely incompatible with the necessary flexibility required in academia. ] (]) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::All this, however, is light years away from the positions adopted by the "grievance politics" of some of the academics in the article we're discussing. This kind of "modern left wing" approach seems to me to be as uninterested in evidence as any conservative. I have from time to time been in meetings with ], for example, and the predominant impression I've had is that they're more interested in policing thought than advancing it, and in attacking (white heterosexual) males than advancing women. As an outsider, some of what I've seen has looked to me very much like bullying, and I think the article is largely concerned with developments of this kind on US campuses. ] (]) 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::We should also be careful about the ], not all "conservatives" are explicitly about maintaining the status quo, and we have ] as well as ] as fairly distinct concepts. The latter, IMO ''is'' alive and well when the deans meet with the provosts... and that also explains why most universities in the USA have many more classes taught by adjuncts than they did 20 years ago. ] (]) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The author's opinion is not entirely negative. I think this quote is representative of his opinion: | |||
:<blockquote>Gradually coming into focus is the plain fact that today we have two universities — the traditional university, which, while mostly left-liberal, still resides on Planet Earth, and the grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege. You can still get a decent education, even from very liberal professors — I had several excellent ones as both an undergraduate and a graduate student — if they teach the subject matter reasonably, and I came to respect several far-left professors at Boulder who plainly held to traditional views about the importance of reason, objectivity, and truth. But these traditional hallmarks of the university — one might call them the original holy trinity of higher education — are fighting words to the postmodern Left, which openly rejects reason, objectivity, and truth as tools of oppression.</blockquote> | |||
:In other words, there is one faction of the university that he respects, even if it is mostly left-liberal. There's another faction (which he seems to see as a loud and aggressive minority) that he doesn't. --] (]) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::This has a bit of the "some of my best friends are " trope, though... --] (]) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Rafael Trujillo== | |||
When Rafael Trujillo was in power, how long was a presidential term in the Dominican Republic, and were there ever any term limits? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:According to , he refused to run in 1938, citing American two term practice, rather than any written law. When Roosevelt took a third term, Trujillo again decided to follow suit. A term was four years. Not sure if that was codified in Trujillo's day or if it was also just because America did it that way. | |||
:Now, at least according to ], they go four years, max two terms. ] ] 06:34, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== Non-involvement in marriage == | |||
Lately, I've been seeing people offer as a third option in the marriage debate that we should "get the government out of marriage". What exactly is meant by this because it makes no sense, conceptually or grammatically to me. — ] ] 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:There is the religious marriage and also the legal one. Historically, these have been the same thing. However, it doesn't have to be that way. You could have religious marriage(s) to whomever or whatever you want, so long as your priest, imam, rabbi or witch doctor agreed, while a legal marriage, perhaps called a "civil union", could be arranged by sending in a form to the government. Only the legal marriage would count for tax purposes, adoption, the "can't testify against your spouse" law, etc. This would finally separate the state and church in regards to marriage, and each could then define their own rules for it, without stepping on each other's toes. ] (]) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:It basically means that the government should not give benefits to married couples or make any distinction in the law between married and unmarried persons/couples. The idea is that marriage is purely a private thing, something that the government should not be involved with (e.g. by granting marriage licenses). - ] (]) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Similar to what StuRat said, another proposal is that the government could recognize some form of ''households'' but not concern itself in any way with the makeup of those households. Side remark: for years, these proposals came almost entirely from social radicals generally opposed to the institution of marriage. Once many governments began to recognize same-sex marriages, the same proposal of getting the state out of the marriage business was suddenly coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. - ] | ] 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: But as far as I know that comes from the kind of conservatism that says "Don't let the government change what I'm used to, including any governmental favoritism from which I benefit." —] (]) 09:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:It's useful to understand why churches got into the marriage business in the first place. In earlier times, marriage, at least where one or both parties came from families with some wealth (however little) was to some extent a business deal. The historical use of the phrase "to contract a marriage" makes this very obvious. Marriage contracts were recorded by churches because the clergy had a long-standing historical role as witnesses to political, social and business contracts of all kinds (for example, the ] was witnessed by two archbishops, ten bishops and twenty abbots), and because in pre-medieval times in most places the only person who could read and write was the local clergyman. The church's official position for a long time was that celibacy was preferable to marriage, but when the church was intertwined with the state the church inevitably got involved in writing and witnessing all kinds of contracts. This was so institutionalised that ]s in England were even authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as "minor clergy" in 1392. Inevitably, this led to the church eventually taking the view that marriage was a contract that could only be entered into in church. | |||
:You can't get government out of the marriage business, since marriages are still contracts, and these contracts must from time to time be enforced or (more commonly these days) arbitrated through the courts. In the past, churches got into the marriage business because the government needed people who could read and write contracts. Now that churches no longer have a monopoly on literacy, it seems reasonable to get churches out of the civil marriage business. You can't get government out of the civil marriage business, though, because there will always be civil contracts between people. Christians who want to "get government out of the marriage business" really mean they want to "get government out of the same-sex marriage business" - they still want to be able to use the government to enforce "opposite-sex marriage". ] (]) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
In some countries, only "civil ceremonies" are valid (e.g. Mexico). Churches were big into ceremonies as a result of the Catholic definition of the Sacraments. Any ceremony officiated over by a Catholic cleric which is not in accord with theology is not only invalid, but a major sin (likely true of some other groups as well). There is no way to overcome the difference between "Sacramental Matrimony" and any civil ceremony to that Church. The support for "civil partnership" is large, but no courts have sought that solution, so who knows what will happen in the next fifty years - we has alcohol Prohibition, then repeal, Marijuana prohibition, then relaxation of the laws, and unlimited consumption of sugar and tobacco which some would not restrict (Prohibition of tobacco, anyone?) Society has never been truly static, I think. ] (]) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Ông Địa == | |||
] | |||
Does anyone know a Chinese term for this figure in the East Asian lion dance? The Vietnamese call him ''Ông Địa''. | |||
:Our article on the ] suggests it is a Vietnamese cultural addition to the broader tradition of the lion dance. Could it be that the figure doesn't traditionally appear in the Chinese version? If it did appear, they might use the "traditional" Vietnamese name? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Good question. The people who do the lion dancing here in Seattle are associated with a martial arts group (Mak Fai Kung Fu Club) that I presume is Chinese in origin, and lion dancing here goes back far enough that our older pictures of it are public domain from pre-1923 publication, but there is enough cross-cultural interaction in the A.P.I. community here that such an adaptation would be possible. - ] | ] 22:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::And did that character feature in those pre-1923 lion dances or is he a relatively new addition to the Seattle scene? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::As for the old stuff, hard to know because there are only a very few pictures. I'd suspect a later addition, and it could well be from the Vietnamese (in which case it wouldn't just be post-1923 but almost certainly post-1970). I'm hoping someone might weigh in here who actually knows. I wasn't planning on doing a research project just to describe my photo accurately, but it wouldn't be unprecedented if I have to. - ] | ] 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
contains the following sentence: "''the concept ‘Ông Địa’ is truly culture-specific. It is a famous and unique character in Vietnamese water puppetry and cannot be found in any other cultures.''"--] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Huh. So it must be a recent appropriation. - ] | ] 07:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
= February 24 = | |||
== Introduction of serfdom in Russia == | |||
When was serfdom introduced in Russia? Our article ] says "Serfdom Eastern Europe became dominant around the 15th century." (no citation), while ] states (also without citation) that it was he who introduced "the first laws restricting the mobility of the peasants, which would eventually lead to serfdom." Which one is it, or is the truth somewhere in the middle? — ] 06:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:It's possible to have serfdom without laws codifying it, although I don't know if this happened in Russia. ] (]) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::That's true, but the two claims are still contradictory, the second saying the codes ''led to'' the already allegedly dominant serfdom. I also don't know which one is lying, but it sure isn't neither. Could be both. ] ] 06:44, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::Or wait, no, could be neither. There really is no limit on what counts as "around the 15th century". Depends how far back you stand to look at it. ] ] 06:46, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::: <small>This astute observation has the potential to greatly simplify my life. Henceforth, when anyone asks me where anything is, I can always reply "around here", considering that the earth itself shrinks to a ] when seen from our solar backyard. — ] 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
::::<small>I've been saying for years that there is always a bigger picture. My life quest is to discover what the Universe looks like from the outside looking in. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
:::: <small>Fitting to the topic, I already used this new insight for Boris Godunov.— ] 08:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
::"]" is a bit more defined, but also wiggle room there. It definitely isn't exactly the same as "]". ] ] 06:50, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::: This sentence was added as part of by an IP account who did no other edit. — ] 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
<br> | |||
Forms of serfdom were very common all over Medieval Europe. People could actually be regarded as the property of a landowner or they were bound to the land they were working on without owning it. It's not an exclusively Russian phenomenon, so it may not be all that relevant when exactly it was 'introduced'. There is a short article about the subject in Dutch Misplaced Pages: ] --] (]) 08:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Perhaps the ] article refers to the so-called second serfdom, which we don't currently have a separate article on, but is mentioned in our ] aticle, two paragraphs down from the one quoted by Sebastian. — ]<sup>]</sup> 10:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:06, 24 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 11
Shopping carts
Where were the first shopping carts introduced?
- shopping cart and Sylvan Goldman say the Humpty Dumpty chain
- Piggly Wiggly says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review
Both articles agree it was in 1937 in Oklaholma. I believe that Humpty Dumpty is more likely, but some high quality sources would be useful. TSventon (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be a matter of some dispute, but Guide to the Telescoping Shopping Cart Collection, 1946-1983, 2000 by the Smithsonian Institution has the complex details of the dispute between Sylvan Goldman and Orla Watson. No mention of Piggly Wiggly, but our article on Watson notes that in 1946, he donated the first models of his cart to 10 grocery stores in Kansas City.
- The Illustrated History of American Military Commissaries (p. 205) has both Watson and Goldman introducing their carts in 1947 (this may refer to carts that telescope into each other for storage, a feature apparently lacking in Goldman's first model).
- Scalable Innovation: A Guide for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and IP Professionals says that Goldman's first cart was introduced to Humpty Dumty in 1937.
- Make of that what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I remember that the power lift arrangement mentioned in the Smithsonian's link was still an object of analysis for would-be inventors in the mid-sixties, and possibly later, even though the soon to be ubiquituous checkout counter conveyor belt was very much ready making it unnecessary. Couldn't help curiously but think about those when learning about Bredt's rule at school later, see my user page, but it's true "Bredt" sounded rather like "Bread" in my imagination. --Askedonty (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- On Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing shopping carts referenced in Portland, Oregon in 1935 or earlier, and occasionally illustrated, at a store called the Public Market; and as far as the term itself is concerned, it goes back to at least the 1850s. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- But perhaps referring to a cart brought by the shopper to carry goods home with, rather than one provided by the storekeeper for use in-store? Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@Alansplodge, Askedonty, and Baseball Bugs: thank you for your help, it seems that the Harvard Business Review is mistaken and the Piggly Wiggly chain did not introduce the first shopping baskets, which answers my question. The shopping cart article references a paper by Catherine Grandclément, which shows that several companies were selling early shopping carts in 1937, so crediting Sylvan Goldman alone is not the whole story. TSventon (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII
At 53:20 in Dunkirk (1958 film), British soldiers talk about 'flowers on the way into Belgium, raspberries on the way out', and specifically reference lilacs. I imagine this was very clear to 1958 audiences, but what is the significance of lilacs? Is it/was it a symbol of Belgium? Valereee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's just that the BEF entered Belgium in the Spring, which is lilac time. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are contemporary reports of the streets being strewn with lilac blossom. See here "Today the troops crossed the frontier along roads strewn with flowers. Belgian girls, wildly enthusiastic, plucked lilac from the wayside and scattered it along the road to be torn and twisted by the mighty wheels of the mechanised forces." DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! That would explain it, thanks! Valereee (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
December 12
The USA adding a new state
If my understanding is correct, the following numbers are valid at present: (a) number of Senators = 100; (b) number of Representatives = 435; (c) number of electors in the Electoral College = 538. If the USA were to add a new state, what would happen to these numbers? Thank you. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The number of senators would increase by 2, and the number of representatives would probably increase by at least 1. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thus, to answer the final question, the minimum number of Electors would be 3… more if the new state has more Representatives (based on population). Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the short term, there would be extra people in congress. The 86th United States Congress had 437 representatives, because Alaska and Hawaii were granted one upon entry regardless of the apportionment rules. Things were smoothed down to 435 at the next census, two congresses later. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me re-phrase my question. (a) The number of Senators is always 2 per State, correct? (b) The number of Representatives is what? Is it "capped" at 435 ... or does it increase a little bit? (c) The number of Electors (per State) is simply a function of "a" + "b" (per State), correct? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, it is indeed capped at 435, though Golbez brings up a point I hadn't taken into account -- apparently it can go up temporarily when states are added, until the next reapportionment. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that (b) would probably depend on whether the hypothetical new state was made up of territory previously part of one or more existing states, or territory not previously part of any existing state. And I suspect that the eventual result would not depend on any pre-calculable formula, but on cut-throat horsetrading between the two main parties and other interested bodies. {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- Nope, it's capped at 435. See Reapportionment Act of 1929. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Constitution has a much higher cap, currently around eleven thousand. —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, it's capped at 435. See Reapportionment Act of 1929. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, one other refinement. The formula you've given for number of electors is correct, for states. But it leaves out the District of Columbia, which gets as many electors as it would get if it were a state, but never
lessmore than those apportioned to the smallest state. In practice that means DC gets three electors. That's why the total is 538 instead of 535. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Oops; I remembered the bit about the smallest state wrong. It's actually never more than the smallest state. Doesn't matter in practice; still works out to 3 electors for the foreseeable future, either way, because DC would get 3 electors if it were a state, and the least populous state gets 3. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
December 13
economics: coffee prices question
in news report "On Tuesday, the price for Arabica beans, which account for most global production, topped $3.44 a pound (0.45kg), having jumped more than 80% this year. " how do they measure it? some other report mention it is a commodity price set for trading like gold silver etc. what is the original data source for this report? i checked a few other news stories and did not find any clarification about this point, they just know something that i don't. thank you in advance for your help. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Gryllida, they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the List of traded commodities. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later
- explanation here
- I googled "coffee c futures price chart" and the first link was uk.investing.com which I can't link here
- if you have detailed questions about futures contracts they will probably go over my head. TSventon (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- thanks. i see the chart which you cannot link here. why did it peak and then drop shortly after? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Financial markets tend to have periods of increase followed by periods of decrease (bull and bear markets), see market trend for background. TSventon (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
source for an order of precedence for abbotts
Hi friends. The article for Ramsey Abbey in the UK refers to an "order of precedence for abbots in Parliament". (Sourced to an encyclopedia, which uses the wording "The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's"). Did a ranking/order of precedence exist and if yes where can it be found? Presumably this would predate the dissolution of monasteries in england. Thanks.70.67.193.176 (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The abbots called to parliament were called "Mitred Abbots" although not all were entitled to wear a mitre. Our Mitre article has much the same information as you quote, and I suspect the same citations. The only other reference I could find, also from an encyclopedia;
- Of the abbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence till A.D. 1154, when Pope Adrian IV, an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St. Alban's. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading had the third place.
- A Church Dictionary: A Practical Manual of Reference for Clergymen and Students (p. 2)
- Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources differ on the order. There is a list published in 1842 of 26 abbots as "generally ... reckoned" in order here
- The Church History of Britain Volume 2 (p.182) TSventon (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be Mesne lords. 194.73.48.66 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Mean lords" looks like an alternative spelling that was used in the 19th century, so it was probably a correct spelling in 1842. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Mean lords" in that reference should presumably be Mesne lords. 194.73.48.66 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone very much for your time and research, truly appreciated. all the best,70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Are the proposed Trump tariffs a regressive tax in disguise?
I'm wondering if there has been analysis of this. The US government gets the tariff money(?) and biggest chunk will be on manufactured goods from China. Those in turn are primarily consumer goods, which means that the tariff is something like a sales tax, a type of tax well known to be regressive. Obviously there are leaks in the description above, so one would have to crunch a bunch of numbers to find out for sure. But that's what economists do, right? Has anyone weighed in on this issue? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:327E (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- There have been many public comments about how this is a tax on American consumers. It's only "in disguise" to those who don't understand how tariffs work. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll see what I can find. Do you remember if the revenue collected is supposed to be enough for the government to care about? I.e. enough to supposedly offset the inevitable tax cuts for people like Elon Musk? 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:327E (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Import duties are extremely recessive in that (a) they are charged at the same rate for any given level of income; and (b) those with less income tend to purchase far more imported goods than those with more income (define “more” and “less” any way you wish). Fiscally, they border on insignificant, running an average of 1.4% of federal revenue since 1962 (or, 0.2% of GDP), compared to 47.1% (8.0%) for individual income tax and 9.9% (1.7%) for corporate tax receipts.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Curious about your point (b); why would this be? It seems to me that as my income has risen I have probably bought more stuff from abroad, at least directly. It could well be that I've bought less indirectly, but I'm not sure why that would be. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- More like, those with less income spend a larger fraction of their income on imported goods, instead of services. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Trovatore, most daily use items are imported: toothbrushes, combs, kitchenware, shopping bags. Most durable goods are imported: phones, TVs, cars, furniture, sporting goods, clothes. These items are more likely to be imported because it is MUCH cheaper / more profitable to make them abroad. Wander through Target, Sam's Club, or Wal-Mart and you'll be hard pressed to find "Made in America" goods. But, in a hand-crafted shop, where prices have to reflect the cost of living HERE, rather than in Bangladesh, prices soar. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Um, sure, but surely it's a fairly rare person of any income level who spends a significant portion of his/her income on artisanal goods. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- PiusImpavidus, Every income strata (in America) spends far more on services than on goods. Services tend to be more of a repeated purchase: laundry (vs. washing machine), Uber (vs. car), rent (vs. purchase), internet (vs. books), etc. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Ron A. Dunn: Australian arachnologist
For Ronald Albert Dunn (Q109827858) I have given names of "Ron. A.", an address in 1958 of 60 Mimosa Road, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia S.E. 9 (he was also in Carnegie in 1948) and an uncited death date of 25 June 1972.
He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS.
Can anyone find the full given names, and a source or the death date, please? What did the honorifics stand for? Do we know how he earned his living? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start
- A scan of the 1954 Carnegie electoral roll has
- Dunn, Ronald Albert, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, accountant
- Dunn, Gladys Harriet I, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, home duties
- I can't check newspapers.com, but The Age apparently had a report about Ronald Albert Dunn on 27 Jun 1972 TSventon (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I accessed Ancestry.com via the Misplaced Pages Library, so you should have access. Newspapers.com is also available via the library if you register, which I haven't. An editor with a Newspapers.com account would be able to make a clipping which anyone could access online.
- I agree AAA is probably the Australian Society of Accountants, a predecessor of CPA Australia. They merged in 1953 (source) so the information would have been outdated in 1958. AAIS could be Associate Amalgamated Institute of Secretaries (source Who's Who in Australia, Volume 16, 1959 Abbreviations page 9). TSventon (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. TSventon (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Or perhaps someone at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request could help? Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. TSventon (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given his specialty, I suggest the honorific stands for "Aaaaaaaaagh It's (a) Spider!" Chuntuk (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
December 15
Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception
Did the three schisms between Rome and Constantinople tarnish Rome's reputation to the degree that it affected the Byzantine self-perception as the "Roman Empire" and as "Romans"? Including Constantinople's vision of succession to the Roman Empire and its notion of Second Rome. Brandmeister 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Various maneuverings in the middle ages (including the infamous Fourth Crusade) certainly gave many Byzantines a negative view of western Catholics, so that toward the end some frankly preferred conquest by Muslims to a Christian alliance which would involve Byzantine religious and political subordination to the European West (see discussion at Loukas Notaras). But the Byzantines generally considered themselves to be the real Romans, and called themselves "Romaioi" much more often than they called themselves Greek (of course, "Byzantine" is a later retroactive term). AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think these religious schisms had nothing to do with the secular political situation. In 330, before Christianity became an established religion that could experience schisms, Constantine the Great moved the capital of the unitary Roman Empire from Rome to the city of Byzantium and dubbed it the New Rome – later renamed to Constantinople. During the later periods in which the Western and Eastern Roman Empire were administered separately, this was not considered a political split but an expedient way of administering a large polity, of which Constantinople remained the capital. So when the Western wing of the Roman Empire fell to the Ostrogoths and even the later Exarchate of Ravenna disappeared, the Roman Empire, now only administered by the Constantinopolitan court, continued in an unbroken succession from the Roman Kingdom and subsequent Republic. --Lambiam 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Ottoman Turkish, the term روم (Rum), ultimately derived from Latin Roma, was used to designate the Byzantine Empire, or, as a geographic term, its former lands. Fun fact: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmet the Conqueror and his successors claimed the title of Caesar of Rome, with the Ottoman Empire being the successor of the Byzantine Empire. IMO this claim has merit; Mehmet II was the first ruler of yet another dynasty, but rather than replacing the existing Byzantine administrative apparatus, he simply continued its use for the empire he had become the ruler of. If you recognize the claim, the Republic of Turkey is today's successor of the Roman Kingdom. --Lambiam 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Ottomans basically continued the Byzantine tax-collection system, for a while. AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Ottoman Turkish, the term روم (Rum), ultimately derived from Latin Roma, was used to designate the Byzantine Empire, or, as a geographic term, its former lands. Fun fact: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmet the Conqueror and his successors claimed the title of Caesar of Rome, with the Ottoman Empire being the successor of the Byzantine Empire. IMO this claim has merit; Mehmet II was the first ruler of yet another dynasty, but rather than replacing the existing Byzantine administrative apparatus, he simply continued its use for the empire he had become the ruler of. If you recognize the claim, the Republic of Turkey is today's successor of the Roman Kingdom. --Lambiam 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Foreign Presidents/Heads of State CURRENTLY Buried in the USA
How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) For example, In Woodlawn Cemetery in Miami, FL, there are two Cuban presidents and a Nicaraguan president.
Are there any other foreign presidents, heads of state, that are buried in the USA? Exeter6 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I know, all 4 of the presidents of the Republic of Texas are buried in Texas, which is currently in the US. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Andrés Domingo y Morales del Castillo was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though.
- Also Anselmo Alliegro y Milá (President of Cuba for a few hours on January 1, 1959) similarly went to Florida and died there.
- And Arnulfo Arias, ousted as President of Panama in the 1968 Panamanian coup d'état, died in Florida (a pattern emerging here...)
- Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- For ease of reference, the Woodlawn Cemetery in question is Caballero Rivero Woodlawn Park North Cemetery and Mausoleum, housing:
- Gerardo Machado, president of Cuba from 1925 to 1933
- Carlos Prío Socarrás, president of Cuba from 1948 to 1952
- Anastasio Somoza Debayle, president of Nicaragua from 1967 to 1972, and from 1974 to 1979 (not to be confused with his father Anastasio Somoza García and brother Luis Somoza Debayle, both former presidents of Nicaragua, buried together in Nicaragua)
- GalacticShoe (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Searching Findagrave could be fruitful. Machado's entry: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Polish prime minister and famous musician Ignacy Paderewski had his grave in the United States until 1992. AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I guess not current, though... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can find some with the following Wikidata query: . Some notable examples are Liliʻuokalani, Pierre Nord Alexis, Dương Văn Minh, Lon Nol, Bruno Carranza, Victoriano Huerta, and Mykola Livytskyi. Note that Alexander Kerensky died in the US but was buried in the UK. Unfortunately, the query also returns others who were presidents, governors, etc. of other than sovereign states. --Amble (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose we should also consider Jefferson Davis as a debatable case. And Peter II of Yugoslavia was initially buried in the USA but later reburied in Serbia. He seems to have been the only European monarch who was at one point buried in the USA. --Amble (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Manuel Quezon was initially buried at Arlington. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- And of course I should rather think that most monarchs of Hawaii are buried in the USA. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --142.112.149.206 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Royal Mausoleum (Mauna ʻAla) answers that question with a definitive "yes, it was". Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --142.112.149.206 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Antanas Smetona was initially buried in Cleveland, but then reburied elsewhere in Ohio. --Amble (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be specific, All Souls Cemetery in Chardon according to Smetona's article. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are a number of Egyptian mummies in US museums (List of museums with Egyptian mummies in their collections), but I can't find any that are currently known to be the mummy of a pharaoh. The mummy of Ramesses I was formerly in the US, but was returned to Egypt in 2003. --Amble (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
December 17
Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800
What would have been the typical extent (in square miles or square kilometers) of an English parish, circa 1800 or so? Let's say the median rather than the mean. With more interest in rural than urban parishes. -- Avocado (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There were tensions involved in a unit based on the placement of churches being tasked to administer the poor law; that was why "civil parishes" were split off a little bit later... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Avocado As a start the mean area of a parish in England and Wales in around 1832 seems to have been around 5.6 square miles.
- Source The Edinburgh Encyclopædia Volume 8. It also has figures by county if you are interested.
- p.494 38,498,572 acres, i.e. 60,154 square miles
- p.497 10,674 parishes and parochial chapelries
- Average 3,607 acres, i.e. 5.64 square miles TSventon (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- that's a starting point, at least! -- Avocado (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But regionally variable:
- By the early nineteenth century the north-west of England, including the expanding cities of Manchester and Liverpool, had just over 150 parishes, each of them covering an average of almost 12,000 acres, whereas the more rural east of the country had more than 1,600 parishes, each with an average size of approximately 2,000 acres.
- OCR A Level History: Britain 1603-1760
- Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary , in England , which contains 38,500,000 statute acres, the parishes or livings comprehend about 3,850 acres the average; and if similar allowance be made for those livings in cities and towns , perhaps about 4,000.
- An Essay on the Revenues of the Church of England (1816) p. 165
- The point about urban parishes distorting the overall average is supported by St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate for instance, that had a parish of only 3 acres (or two football pitches of 110 yards by 70 yards placed side by side). Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, that's great info -- ty! I can't seem to get a look at the content of the book. Does it say anything else about other regions? -- Avocado (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OCR book doesn't mention other regions. I have found where the figure of 10,674 came from: page 112 of the 1816 essay has a note that
Preliminary Observations ( p . 13. and 15. ) to the Popu-lation Returns in 1811 ; where the Parishes and Parochial Chapelries are stated at 10,674 .
The text of page 112 says thatchurches are contained in be-tween 10 , and 11,000 parishes † ; and probably after a due allowance for consolidations , & c . they constitute the Churches of about 10,000 Parochial Benefices
, so the calculation on p.165 of the 1816 essay is based on around 10,000 parishes in England (and Wales) in 1800 (38,500,000 divided by 3,850). TSventon (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) - The primary source is Abstract of the Answers and Returns Made Pursuant to an Act Passed in the Fifty-first Year of His Majesty King George III, Intituled, "An Act for Taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and of the Increase Or Diminution Thereof" : Preliminary Observations, Enumeration Abstract, Parish Register Abstract, 1811 and the table of parishes by county is on page xxix. TSventon (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! -- Avocado (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OCR book doesn't mention other regions. I have found where the figure of 10,674 came from: page 112 of the 1816 essay has a note that
- Parishes, like political constituencies etc, were in theory decided by the number of inhabitants, not the area covered. What the average was at particular points, I don't know. No doubt it rose over recent centuries as the population expanded, but rural parishes generally did not. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- But whatever the population changes, the parish boundaries in England (whether urban or rural) remained largely fixed between the 12th and mid-19th centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I'm not asking because I thought parish boundaries had been drawn to equalize the geographic area covered or I wanted to know how those boundaries came about. I'm asking because I'm curious what would have been typical in terms of geographic area in order to better understand certain aspects of the society of the time.
- For instance, how far (and thus how long) would people have to travel to get to their church? How far might they live from other people who attended the same church? How far would the rector/vicar/curate have to range to attend to his parishioners in their homes?
- Questions like that. Does that make the reason for this particular inquiry make more sense? -- Avocado (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Someone on Reddit had a similar question and the answer there suggested C. N. L. Brooke’s Churches and Churchmen in Medieval Europe (1999) on Google books. You may find the first chapter, Rural Ecclesiastical Institutions in England : The Search for their Origins interesting. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link!
- Fwiw, I'm not really seeing any answers to questions of actual geographic extent in that first chapter, mostly info on the "how they came to be" that, again, isn't really the focus of the question. Or maybe the info I'm looking for is in the pages that are omitted from the preview?
- The rest of the book is clearly focused on a much earlier period than I'm interested in (granted, parish boundaries may not have changed much between the start of the Reformation and the Georgian era, but culture, practices, and the relationship of most people to their church and parish certainly would have!) -- Avocado (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The chapter is relevant to how far people had to travel in the middle ages, which I can see is not the period you are interested in. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks to me as if the pages I need are probably among the unavailable ones, then. Oh well. Thank you for the suggestion regardless! -- Avocado (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The chapter is relevant to how far people had to travel in the middle ages, which I can see is not the period you are interested in. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Someone on Reddit had a similar question and the answer there suggested C. N. L. Brooke’s Churches and Churchmen in Medieval Europe (1999) on Google books. You may find the first chapter, Rural Ecclesiastical Institutions in England : The Search for their Origins interesting. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- One last link, the introduction of which might be helpful, describing attempts to create new parishes for the growing population in the early 19th century (particularly pp. 19-20):
- The New parishes acts, 1843,1844, & 1856. With notes and observations &c
- Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
When was the first bat mitzvah?
Bar and bat mitzvah has a short history section, all of which is about bar mitzvah. When was the first bat mitzvah? What is its history? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am more asking when the bat mitzvah ritual became part of common Jewish practice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Parts from Google's translation of he:בת מצווה:
- As early as the early 19th century, in the early days of Reform Judaism, confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls began to be held in which their knowledge of the religion was tested, similar to that practiced among Christians. It spread to the more liberal circles of German Jewry, and by the middle of the century had also begun to be widespread among the Orthodox bourgeoisie. Rabbi Jacob Etlinger of Altona was forced by the community's regulations to participate in such an event in 1867, and published the sermon he had prepared for the purpose later. He emphasized that he was obligated to do so by law, and that Judaism did not recognize that the principles of the religion should be adopted in such a public declaration, since it is binding from birth. However, as part of his attempt to stop the Reform, he supported a kind of parallel procedure that was intended to take place exclusively outside the synagogue.
- The idea of confirmation was not always met with resistance, especially with regard to girls: the chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of French Jews, Shlomo Zalman Ullmann, permitted it for both sexes in 1843. In 1844, confirmation for young Jews was held for the first time in Verona, Italy. In the 1880s, Rabbi Zvi Hermann Adler agreed to the widespread introduction of the ceremony, after it had become increasingly common in synagogues, but refused to call it 'confirmation'. In 1901, Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor, cantor in Alexandria, permitted it for both boys and girls, inspired by what was happening in Italy. Other rabbis initially ordered a more conservative event.
- At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude towards the bat mitzvah party was reserved, because it was sometimes an attempt to imitate symbols drawn from the confirmation ceremony, and indeed there were rabbis, such as Rabbi Aharon Volkin, who forbade the custom on the grounds of gentile laws, or who treated it with suspicion, such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who in a 1950s recantation forbade holding an event in the synagogue because it was "a matter of authority and a mere vanity...there is no point and no basis for considering it a matter of a mitzvah and a mitzvah meal". The Haredi community also expressed strong opposition to the celebration of the bat mitzvah due to its origins in Reform circles. In 1977, Rabbi Yehuda David Bleich referred to it as one of the "current problems in halakhah", noting that only a minority among the Orthodox celebrate it and that it had spread to them from among the Conservatives.
- On the other hand, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, rabbis began to encourage holding a Bat Mitzvah party for a daughter, similar to a party that is customary for a son, with the aim of strengthening observance of the mitzvot among Jewish women.
- --Lambiam 11:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Surprising how recent it is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
December 18
Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century
What would be the most important feminist victories prior to the 18th and 19th centuries? I'm looking for specific laws or major changes (anywhere in the world), not just minor improvements in women's pursuit of equality. Something on the same scale and importantance as the women's suffrage. DuxCoverture (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any occuring without being foreseable a set of conditions such as the perspective of a minimal equal representation both in the judiciary and law enforcement. Those seem to be dependent on technological progress, maybe particularly law enforcement although the judiciary sometimes heavily relies on recording capabilities. Unfortunately Ancient Egypt is not very explicitly illustrating the genesis of its sociological dynamics. --Askedonty (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Before universal male suffrage became the norm in the 19th century, also male commoners did not pull significant political weight, at least in Western society, so any feminist "victories" before then can only have been minor improvements in women's rights in general. --Lambiam 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Changes regarding divorce, property rights of women, protections against sexual assault or men's mistreatment of women could have have been significant, right? (Though I don't know what those changes were) 2601:644:907E:A70:9072:5C74:BC02:CB02 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think many of those were widely, significantly changed prior to the 18th century, though the World is large and diverse, and history is long, so it's difficult to generalise. See Women's rights. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Changes regarding divorce, property rights of women, protections against sexual assault or men's mistreatment of women could have have been significant, right? (Though I don't know what those changes were) 2601:644:907E:A70:9072:5C74:BC02:CB02 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the English monarchy, when King Henry I died in 1135 with no living male legitimate child, a civil war followed over whether his daughter or his nephew should inherit the throne. (It was settled by a compromise.) But in 1553 when King Edward VI died, Queen Mary I inherited the throne and those who objected did it on religious grounds and not because she was a woman: in fact there was an attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne instead. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Although Mary's detractors believed that her Catholic zeal was a result of her gender; a point made by the Calvinist reformer John Knox, who published a polemic entitled The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. When the Protestant Elizabeth I inherited the throne, there was a quick about face; Elizabeth was compared to the Biblical Deborah, who had freed the Israelites from the Canaanites and led them to an era of peace and prosperity, and was obviously a divine exception to the principle that females were unfit to rule. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- A possibly fictional account in the film Agora has the proto-feminist Hypatia anticipating Kepler's orbits about two millenia before that gentleman, surely a significant feminine achievement. Philvoids (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- "The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies: It inflates Hypatia's achievements and incorrectly portrays her as finding a proof of Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever studied." (from our Hypatia article linked above). Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if true (we have no proof she did not embrace the heliocentric model while developing the theory of gravitation to boot), it did not result in a major change in the position of women. --Lambiam 03:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "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)
Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol
Who was Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol? There is only one reference online ("Letter from Joseph Mary Thouveau. Bishop of Sebastopol, to Philip Lutley Sclater regarding Lady Amherst's Pheasant", 1869), and that has no further details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- After that search engine I used insisted I was looking for a Chauveau I finally located this Joseph Marie Chauveau - So the J M Thouveau item from maxarchiveservices uk must be one of the eccentricities produced by that old fashioned hand-written communication they had in the past. --Askedonty (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of interest that other notice Joseph, Marie, Pierre. The hand-written text scribbled on the portrait stands as 'Eveque de Sebastopolis'. Pierre-Joseph Chauveau probably, now is also mentioned as Pierre-Joseph in Voyages ..even though, Lady Amherst's Pheasant is referred, in the same, through an other missionary intermediary: similar. --Askedonty (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also in Contribution des missionnaires français au progrès des sciences naturelles au XIX et XX. (1932). Full texts are not accessible though it seems there is three times the same content in three different but more or less simultaneously published editions. Askedonty (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a stub at fr:Joseph-Marie Chauveau (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at fr:Évêché titulaire de Sébastopolis-en-Arménie. TSventon (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Askedonty: Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error.
- . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Those results were in fact detailed enough that we may even document the circumstances associated with Mgr. Chauveau writing the original letter to the Society. Louis Pierre Carreau recounts his buying of specimens in the country, then his learning about the interest for the species in British diplomatic circles about. The French text is available, with the Gallica servers not under excessive stress, in Bulletin de la Société zoologique d'acclimatation 2°sér t. VII aka "1870" p.502 at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb345084433/date; an other account mentioning the specific species is to be found p.194 . --Askedonty (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
December 23
London Milkman photo
I am writing a rough draft of Delivery After Raid, also known as The London Milkman in my sandbox. I’m still trying to verify basic information, such as the original publication of the photo. It was allegedly first published on October 10, 1940, in Daily Mirror, but it’s behind a paywall in British Newspaper Archive, but from the previews I can see, I don’t know think the photo is there. Does anyone know who originally published it or publicized it, or which British papers carried it in the 1940s? For a photo that’s supposed to be famous, it’s almost impossible to find anything about it before 1998. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Somewhat tellingly, this article about this photo in The Times just writes, "
On the morning of October 10, 1940, a photograph taken by Fred Morley of Fox Photos was published in a London newspaper.
" The lack of identification of the newspaper is not due to reluctance of mentioning a competitor, since further on in the article we read, "... the Daily Mirror became the first daily newspaper to carry photographs ...
". --Lambiam 11:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) - I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "Hulton Archive", which might mean it was in Picture Post. Card Zero (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? Card Zero (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of Picture Post imply that it might have appeared in Picture Post? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? Card Zero (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton. Card Zero (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of Picture Post imply that it might have appeared in Picture Post? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? Card Zero (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? Card Zero (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the Daily Mirror of Thursday 10 October 1940. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- a lot of searches suggest it was the Daily Mail. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I've checked the Mirror for the 11th, and the rest of the week. I've checked the News Chronicle, the Express, and the Herald for the 10th. Mail not on BNA. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- As general context, from my professional experience of picture researching back in the day, photo libraries and agencies quite often tried to claim photos and other illustrations in their collections as their own IP even when they were in fact not their IP and even when they were out of copyright. Often the same illustration was actually available from multiple providers, though obviously (in that pre-digital era) one paid a fee to whichever of them you borrowed a copy from for reproduction in a book or periodical. Attributions in published material may not, therefore, accurately reflect the true origin of an image. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just discovered this for myself with Bosman 2008 in The National Gallery in Wartime. In the back of the book it says the London Milkman photo is licensed from Corbis on p. 127. I was leaning towards reading this as an error of some kind before I saw your comment. Interestingly, the Wikpedia article on Corbis illustrates part of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- a lot of searches suggest it was the Daily Mail. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are we sure it was published at the time? I haven't been able to find any meaningful suggestion of which paper it appeared in. I've found a few sources (eg History Today) giving a date in September. I've found several suggesting it tied in with "Keep Calm and Carry On", which of course was almost unknown in the War. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the thing. There's no direct evidence it was ever published except for a few reliable sources asserting it was. However, I did find older news sources contemporaneous to the October 1940 (or thereabouts) photograph referring to it in the abstract after that date, as if it had been widely published. Just going from memory here, and this is a loose paraphrase, but one early-1940s paper on Google newspapers says something like "who can forget the image of the milkman making his deliveries in the rubble of the Blitz"? One notable missing part of the puzzle is that someone, somewhere, did an exclusive interview with Fred Morley about the photograph, and that too is impossible to find. It is said elsewhere that he traveled around the world taking photographs and celebrated his silver jubilee with Fox Photos in 1950-something. Other than that, nothing. It's like he disappeared off the face of the earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should also add, the Getty archive has several images of Fred Morley, one of which shows him using an extremely expensive camera for the time. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the thing. There's no direct evidence it was ever published except for a few reliable sources asserting it was. However, I did find older news sources contemporaneous to the October 1940 (or thereabouts) photograph referring to it in the abstract after that date, as if it had been widely published. Just going from memory here, and this is a loose paraphrase, but one early-1940s paper on Google newspapers says something like "who can forget the image of the milkman making his deliveries in the rubble of the Blitz"? One notable missing part of the puzzle is that someone, somewhere, did an exclusive interview with Fred Morley about the photograph, and that too is impossible to find. It is said elsewhere that he traveled around the world taking photographs and celebrated his silver jubilee with Fox Photos in 1950-something. Other than that, nothing. It's like he disappeared off the face of the earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And furthermore, I haven't found any uses of it that look like a scan from a newspaper or magazine. They all seem to use Getty's original. DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've searched BNA for "Fox Photo" and "Fox Photos" in 1940, and while this does turn up several photos from the agency, no milkmen are among them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No relevant BNA result for "Fox Photo" plus "Morley" at any date. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone checked the Gale Picture Post archive for October 1940? I don't have access to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman?
In Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" (Act 3, Scene 2) Dromio of Syracuse and his master Antipholus of Syracuse discuss Nell the kitchen wench who Dromio says "is spherical, like a globe. I could find out countries in her." After asking about the location of a bunch of countries on Nell (very funny! recommended!), Antipholus ends with: "Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands?" Dromio hints "Belgia, the Netherlands" stood in her privates ("O, sir, I did not look so low.") My question is not about how adequate the comparison is but on whether "Belgia" and "the Netherlands" were the same thing, two synonymous designations for the same thing to Shakespeare (the Netherlands being the whole of the Low Countries and Belgia being just a slightly more literate equivalent of the same)? Or were "the Netherlands" already the Northern Low Countries (i.e. modern Netherlands), i.e. the provinces that had seceded about 15 years prior from the Spanish Low Countries (Union of Utrecht) while "Belgia" was the Southern Low Countries (i.e. modern Belgium and Luxembourg), i.e. the provinces that decided to stay with Spain (Union of Arras)? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at Leo Belgicus, a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later Belgica Foederata was the United Provinces, Belgica Regia the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that Gallia Belgica was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as Inferior Germans, that's for sure! Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This general region was originally part of Middle Francia aka Lotharingia, possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, Simon Winder's Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver 'Ferdy' Habsburg, whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --Askedonty (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver 'Ferdy' Habsburg, whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This general region was originally part of Middle Francia aka Lotharingia, possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, Simon Winder's Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as Inferior Germans, that's for sure! Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that Gallia Belgica was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico, the Belgians (Belgae) were separated from the Germans (Germani) by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands. --Lambiam 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous territory/Indian reservations
Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiyr (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Suriname not as territories. There are some Amerindian villages. Their distribution can be seen on the map at Indigenous peoples in Suriname § Distribution. --Lambiam 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
December 24
Testicles in art
What are some famous or iconic depictions of testicles in visual art (painting, sculpture, etc)? Pre 20th century is more interesting to me but I will accept more modern works as well. 174.74.211.109 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's Charging Bull (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the Moschophoros (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the Kritios Boy, through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! 178.51.16.158 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article you're looking for is Artemision Bronze. GalacticShoe (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe the Cerne Abbas Giant. Shantavira| 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bake-danuki, somewhat well-known in the West through Pom Poko. Card Zero (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation?
The Habsburg were descended (in the male line) from a female (empress Maria-Theresa). They were the Habsburg rulers of Austria because of her, not because of their Lorraine male ancestor. So their name goes against general European patrilinear naming customs. Sometimes, starting with Joseph II they are called Habsburg-Lorraine, but that goes against the rule that the name of the father comes first (I've never heard that anyone was called Lorraine-Habsburg) and most people don't even bother with the Lorraine part, if they even know about it.
As far as I can tell this mostly occurs in states where the sovereign happens at some point to be a female. The descendants of that female sovereign (if they rule) sometimes carry her family name (how often? that must depend on how prominent the father is), though not always (cf. queen Victoria's descendants). Another example would be king James, son of Mary queen of Scots and a nobody. But sometimes this happens in families that do not rule over anything (cf. the Chigi-Zondadari in Italy who were descended from a male Zondadari who married a woman from the much more important family of the Chigi and presumably wanted to be associated with them).
What do genealogists, especially those dealing with royal genealogies, call this sort of situation? I'm looking for something that would mean in effect "switch to the mother's name", but the accepted technical equivalent if it exists.
Also do you know of other such situations in European history?
In England where William (Orange) and Mary (Stuart) were joint sovereign did anyone attempt to guess what a line descended from them both would be called (before it became clear such a line would not happen)?
178.51.16.158 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It happens a fair amount in European history, but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It's generally a dynastic or patrilineal affiliation connected with the woman which is substituted, not the name of the woman herself. The descendents of Empress Matilda are known as Plantagenets after her husband's personal nickname. I'm not sure that the Habsburg-Lorraine subdivision is greatly different from the Capetian dynasty (always strictly patrilineal) being divided into the House of Artois, House of Bourbon, House of Anjou, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". 178.51.16.158 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, the waters of this question are somewhat muddied by the fact that Surnames as we know them were not (even confining ourselves to Europe) always a thing; they arose at different times in different places and in different classes. Amongst the ruling classes, people were often 'surnamed' after their territorial possessions (which could have been acquired through marriage or other means) rather than their parental name(s). Also, in some individual family instances (in the UK, at any rate), a man was only allowed to inherit the property and/or title of/via a female heiress whom they married on the condition that they adopted her family name rather than her, his, so that the propertied/titled family name would be continued. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". 178.51.16.158 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the old style of dynastic reckoning, Elizabeth II would have been transitional from Saxe-Coburg to Glucksberg, and even under the current UK rules, descendants of Prince Philip (and only those descendants) who need surnames use Mountbatten-Windsor. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)