Revision as of 19:27, 6 November 2006 editKjvenus (talk | contribs)100 edits The Veil Controversy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:45, 25 December 2024 edit undoXuxl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,876 edits →Death Row commutations by Biden | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | |||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
] | |||
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|]}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
]</noinclude> | |||
= December 11 = | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 3}} | |||
== Shopping carts == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 4}} | |||
= November 5 = | |||
Where were the first shopping carts introduced? | |||
== Egyptian Happyness == | |||
*] and ] say the Humpty Dumpty chain | |||
*] says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review | |||
I just got an extreemly lousy question for my homework: Are the Egyptians happy with their government? I have no idea either why I would be asked that. So... how/where would I find the answer to that question? Help much appreciated ---- MayhemMessiah Nov 4, 2006 6:16pm (GMT) | |||
::::: Why not just ]. -- ] 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Lousy question? I would say that it was close to ''impossible''. How do you measure 'happiness', and this applies to any political system, not just the Egyptian? Anyway, sorry if this sounds too negative. Begin with the ] and ]. Perhaps it might help if I tell you that there has been a general decline in levels of support for President Mubarak because of allegations of corruption and concerns about the future direction of Egyptian politics. There is also an active Islamist movement in Egypt, hostile to Mubarak's 'secular' form of government. Have a look at the pages I have suggested, then we will take it from there. Good luck. ] 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The results of might give you a teensy bit of help. I agree that it's a really tough one. Unless there's a recent news article from a prominent media outlet that you're supposed to know about. OTOH, google result shows a bunch of hits for a recent news item that the majority of Egyptians don't even know what an opinion poll is, so maybe it's a trick question, meant to convey the different way some societies go about assessing the opinions of citizens? ] 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:And ] 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I'll be specific about those who are unhappy with the government; your teacher will probably want examples. Anyways, there are several groups in ] that oppose the Mubarak regime. First, there are Islamist groups like the ] who favor the implementation of ] in the country. The Brotherhood itself is widely popular (not to mention outlawed.) Also, there are reformist liberals who speak out against the president in the newspapers, and are regularly arrested. For examples, look through the categories ], ], and other categories to be found at ]. (I bet the reason many of them have Misplaced Pages articles is because their arrests were written about!) Then, there are millions of Egyptians (see ] and article) who were accidentally infected with Hepatitis C during a vaccination campaign against ]; call it original research, but I doubt that they're happy with the government. And for some other individuals who oppose the government, see ], which had 9 opposition candidates. ] 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
And yet the question ''still'' is flawed because it is framed as if <u>all</u> Egyptians had the same opinion. The question should be something like, "Are the <u>majority</U> ..." ] 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Danish history == | |||
I'm researching Danish history for a novel I'm writing. Does anyone know what system of measurement was used in Denmark before the metric system. (I believe Denmark adopted the metric system around 1920, if that helps.) I'm specifically looking for the unit of measurement that would have been used for indicating the distance between towns, like the present day kilometer. | |||
Thanks! | |||
] 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Have a look at ]. And good luck with your novel. ] 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::You could check out the Danish version, too, and try to find other sources. The word "palme" for "palm of hand" seems slightly improbable, since Danish uses the word "håndflade". ] 03:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Fabulous! This is exactly what I needed! Thanks! ] 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== How long is a 288-year prison sentence? == | |||
Creationist and tax evader ] may face a sentence of up to 288 years in prison. This reminded me that I've always wondered about why people are given sentences longer than a lifespan. For Kent Hovind, then, what does this mean in practical terms? If sentenced to 288 years, will he inevitably serve for life? Is he likely to be released for good behaviour or something instead, and how soon might this happen? (How long will we be free of him?) --] 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:A sentence of that length would indeed mean that he would be imprisoned for his natural life, without possibility of parole. Unless, of course, he has a lifespan of Old Testament proportions? ] 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::There are a few reasons to impose such long sentences: | |||
::*To counter the tendency to give "time off for good behavior". The percentage that a sentence can be reduced varies by jurisdiction, but can be 75% off in some cases. So, that would lower it to a 72 year sentence. | |||
::*Such sentences are typically the result of multiple convictions. For example, if there were 72 counts of 4 years each, that would total 288 years. Judges are sometimes given leeway to decide if multiple sentences are served concurrently or sequentially, giving them enormous power to vary the sentence. | |||
::*In the case of multiple convictions, it is possible to have some convictions overturned, and others upheld, so the large number of years may be needed to keep the person in prison after appeals. | |||
::Failing to give such long sentences can have disastrous consequences, as in the case of ], a serial killer who was almost released. ] 07:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::That's an excellent explaination. I've always wondered why they gave someone a 7.5 life sentences, but I never looked it up since the law is very ambiguous in some aspects, thus lawyers exist. But now it makes somewhat more sense. --] (]) 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*In this case, we're talking US federal sentencing. There's no parole, and good behavior time is limited to about 15%. Are there mandatory minimums for these crimes? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::This truly is a sad day. With Hovind locked away we will no longer get such gems as: | |||
<small><blockquote>"Sometimes .... people say you are not qualified to talk about a certain subject and then they will use the ad hominem argument "You can not discuss this because you have not been trained". Well, Columbus had no training and yet he proved the world was round." </blockquote></small> | |||
<small><blockquote>"Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock."</blockquote></small> | |||
<small><blockquote>"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world." </blockquote></small> | |||
<small><blockquote>"Actually the book has a much longer title, which they're kinda embarrassed about, The Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin was a racist." </blockquote></small> | |||
<small><blockquote>"The Smithsonian Institute has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement right now as you are reading this. Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it."</blockquote></small> | |||
::What a riot--] 09:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Is there a question in here somewhere or does this somehow relate to the previous question ? ] 10:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's not a question, it's a desperate plea for sanity in this insane world. Try reading ], then come back with some specific questions. ;-) ] 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Yes indeed Stu, that was related to the last question--which was about the infamous Kent Hovind; evolution gadfly; Yogi Bera's creationist doppelganger. Just read those quotes. You couldn't make this stuff up. Anchoress, you sound like a big fan ;-)--] 11:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::The last question wasn't on Kent Hovind, per se, but was about excessive prison sentences. Kent was only used as an example. ] 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Maybe he is. Who wouldn't be? "They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it." I'd only been up for 20 minutes, yet I got my first laugh of the day. --] 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::And my post wasn't obviously a comment related to that question referencing that specific individual, even if tangential? And a discussion of the degree of attenuation is useful how? Another words, why are we discussing this?--] 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I thoroughly enjoyed the quotes, so thank you. :) And thanks everyone for the real answers too. --] 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Its so if he is cleared of some of his convictions, he may still be serving a life sentence on the others, i.e. if someone killed 2 people, was given 2 life sentences, you wouldnt want him released to early for being cleared of one of them. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Secretary of Defense == | |||
Me and a friend have a bet I hope you guys can help us settle. Is the US Secretary of Defense in the chain of command of the US military? As in, if the Secretary starts ordering the generals around, are they obligated to obey his orders, or what? | |||
:Apparently, yes. Our article on ] touches on this topic, though our article on the ] doesn't say this explicitly. See also ], which deals with the situation where a nuclear weapons launch is called for - that ''both'' the Secretary of Defense and the President must give the order for them to be used (even though the constitutionality of such a rule is actually a bit dubious). --] 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== STUDENT COUNCIL HELP 2 == | |||
Help! (again) the last time I was here I posted this question. . . | |||
Where can I find some ideas and slogans for elementary type elections. He needs to find a slogan for his election posters. Thank You | |||
PS: Make sure that the slogans are age approriate. G and PG only --Devol4 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Rhyming is usually important if you're in elementary school (or if you're Jesse Jackson). What's his first name (so we can suggest a nice rhyming slogan) ? ] 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Both articles agree it was in 1937 in Oklaholma. I believe that Humpty Dumpty is more likely, but some high quality sources would be useful. ] (]) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
You might find some ideas at slogan.--Shantavira 10:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
His first name is Daniel and he is Runnig for 5th grade represenative. If you can come up with a slogan it will help so much. | |||
THANKS Chris | |||
:If he goes by "Dan", there's always "Vote for Dan, he's the man !". "Daniel" is a bit harder, we could go with "Vote for Daniel, the man you'll pick !". Try some like that, and keep them short enough to remember. ] 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::"Vote for Daniel, da dawg's no ]!" ;) ] 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
THANKS VERY MUCH WAKURAN | |||
: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. | |||
Peace out | |||
: 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). | |||
Chris | |||
: 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) | |||
== Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII == | |||
:Alright! You're welcome... Glad you liked it! ;D ] 20:39, 5 November 2006 (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) | |||
:Instead of focusing on slogans, perhaps it would be a wise idea to focus on the qualities of the people that are running. --] 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I think it's just that the BEF ] in the Spring, which is lilac time. ] (]) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:There are contemporary reports of the streets being strewn with lilac blossom. See "Today the troops crossed the frontier along roads strewn with flowers. Belgian girls, wildly enthusiastic, plucked lilac from the wayside and scattered it along the road to be torn and twisted by the mighty wheels of the mechanised forces." ] (]) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Ah! That would explain it, thanks! ] (]) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 12 = | |||
::Well, this ''is'' fifth grade. I wouldn't expect him to be digging up his opponent's voting record ;) -] 02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 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. ] (]) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Who make up the Board of Directors of the American Country Music Awards...who determines who is nominated for an award? | |||
: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) | |||
:: it's these folks. ] 23:47, 5 November 2006 (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) | |||
:::This explains how the nominations and voting is handled. It is a bit complicated (vote for five in each category on second ballot) and not limited top the boardmembers. ] 18:12, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
== Marilyn Manson == | |||
: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 = | |||
is it true that he will launch his own makeup line? --] 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== economics: coffee prices question == | |||
:If so, wouldn't you think he would have done so in time for Halloween ? ] 18:29, 5 November 2006 (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) | |||
:: ]! -- ] 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:], they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the ]. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later | |||
:. Maybe he'll do it in time for Christmas, or New Year. (However, that link I gave was from October 2005. So the webpage says that he'll launch it by the end of 2005, not 2006.) --] 18:36, 5 November 2006 (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 == | |||
:Maybe next year? --] 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi friends. The article for ] in the UK refers to an "order of precedence for abbots in Parliament". (Sourced to an encyclopedia, which uses the wording "The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's"). Did a ranking/order of precedence exist and if yes where can it be found? Presumably this would predate the dissolution of monasteries in england. Thanks.] (]) 06:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
aww, I hope he does =(...--] 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The abbots called to parliament were called "Mitred Abbots" although not all were entitled to wear a mitre. Our ] article has much the same information as you quote, and I suspect the same citations. The only other reference I could find, also from an encyclopedia; | |||
== Canadian Play == | |||
:{{xt|Of the abbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence till A.D. 1154, when ], an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St. Alban's. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading had the third place.}} | |||
: | |||
:] (]) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Sources differ on the order. There is a list published in 1842 of 26 abbots as "generally ... reckoned" in order here | |||
I'm looking for a canadian play about nature, I can't seem to find one. -] 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
: ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Start looking here: ]. I saw one by David Young that takes place in an ice cave. ] 20:25, 5 November 2006 (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? == | |||
== racial origins of the Devil == | |||
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) | |||
All the images I remember seeing of the Devil seem to be a dark, swarthy Caucasian (Italo-Spanish type or Arab/Semite). Why is this?, and are there any more modern depictions in the West of blond & blue-eyed, black or Asian devils? Also, do Fundamentalist Christians think the Devil really exists and can take form on Earth, and if so do they always see a Robert De Niro look-a-like or visualize the above-mentioned variations too? Thanks, ==Robert== | |||
: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) | |||
:There is a long history of turning your real enemies (or people you just don't like much) into fantastical or imaginary enemies but perhaps equating them with the devil is just too big a compliment. The devil is often portrayed as more bestial then human with maybe only his/her minions being swarthy type. is a good book of cultural depictions. I would say that there has been a tendency to shift evil from looking obviously evil to being more sly and subtle with evil being thought of as "just like us". Modern devilish depictors I can recall include ], ], ] and ] <small><font color="#000000">]</font></small> 22:00, 5 November 2006 (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 == | |||
::] is depicted as blond and blue-eyed, which I believe was started by ]'s '']'' series. Hardly an orthodox source, but to me it sort of makes sense because Lucifer was one of the most beautiful angels before the Fall, and other angels are often depicted as blond and blue-eyed. I'm sorry I don't have any other answers for you. --] 22:51, 5 November 2006 (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. | |||
:::Does the Devil belong to a race? No more, I would have thought, than any other divine or semi-divine concept. If he does belong to a race it's the race of angels; and how does one depict them? If you take the concept back to source you will find that he is given no physical description in any of the scared texts, Hebrew, Christian or Muslim. It isn't until the Middle Ages that he takes on a physical form, borrowed, in large measure, from the ancient pagan divinities, most notably Dionysis and the Great God Pan. As we move towards the modern age he inevitably metamorphoses into that which people fear most, in political, cultural or racial terms. And as far as angels being blond and blue-eyed that is also a very modern, and culturally specific concept. If the ancient Hebrews had ever attempted to depict such transcendental figures-which they never did-the one thing we can be sure of is that they would not have been seen in such a Nordic guise. ] 00:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS. | |||
::::See also, ]. The statue depicting Lucifer (1878) by ] in ] in Spain, depicts a very "angelic" Satin (i.e. without any "racial" specifics, he looks like a healthy strong European), in line with the mythos of ] and other earlier Christian and non-Christian concepts. --] 01:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Race implies continuation of a species and reproduction, which applies only to animate beings with bodies. Satan, according to the scriptures, is an immortal spiritual being. We can't visualise spiritual beings such as God, angels and devils, so we attribute human forms to them to make the task easier. But that's just our own construct; they don't have bodies. This is also why it's so hard for most people to accept that it's not the case that we ourselves are human beings who have occasional spiritual experiences, but rather, we are immortal spiritual beings who are currently having a temporary human experience. ] 01:47, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
::::::Slightly off topic, but may I suggest that the difficulty of ''visualising'' immortal spiritual beings is not the only reason why it's 'so hard for most people to accept that ... we are immortal spiritual beings who are currently having a temporary human experience'? There are also rather a lot of ''arguments'' for the position that there are no such beings. Cheers, ] 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:] Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start | |||
== Ballot questions == | |||
:A scan of the 1954 Carnegie electoral roll has | |||
:*Dunn, Ronald Albert, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, accountant | |||
:*Dunn, Gladys Harriet I, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, home duties | |||
:I can't check newspapers.com, but The Age apparently had a report about Ronald Albert Dunn on 27 Jun 1972 ] (]) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I accessed Ancestry.com via the Misplaced Pages Library, so you should have access. Newspapers.com is also available via the library if you register, which I haven't. An editor with a Newspapers.com account would be able to make a clipping which anyone could access online. | |||
:::I agree AAA is probably the Australian Society of Accountants, a predecessor of ]. They merged in 1953 () so the information would have been outdated in 1958. AAIS could be Associate Amalgamated Institute of Secretaries (source Abbreviations page 9). ] (]) 16:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. ] (]) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Or perhaps someone at ] could help? ] (]) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::They already have at ]. ] (]) 12:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Given his specialty, I suggest the honorific stands for "Aaaaaaaaagh It's (a) Spider!" ] (]) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 15 = | |||
I cannot find anything at all that explains to me what ballot questions (or whatever they may be called) really are or how they come to be included on the ballot. If laws are voted on by legislators, why then once every couple years are random questions included on the ballot for the general public to pass into law? Do all states do ballot questions? If anyone at all could clarify this for me or elaborate on the process/idea of ballot questions, I'd appreciate it! Also, if you have a good source/website that explains it, include that too. All my Google searches give are news about the actual ballot questions for this Tuesday. ]''' <sup>]</sup>  22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception == | |||
:Our article on this topic is ]. You might also check out ] and ]. Some U.S. states (mainly in the west) make it easier to get these questions on the ballot than do others. Typically, an interest group (with an interest in the question to be put on the ballot) has to collect a certain number of signatures to qualify their question for the ballot. Sometimes the groups sponsoring questions are grassroots citizen's groups, but because of the expense of collecting signatures (which often involves paying people to stand outside supermarkets and collect them), they are often sponsored by industry groups. ] 23:42, 5 November 2006 (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) | |||
::Which is ironic, because I&R was originally a ] reform to try to give power to "the people" at the expense of the organize interests thought to control state legislatures. A short answer to your questions: Generally, ballot questions are put on the ballot through the initiative process Marco Polo mentions, or are put on the ballot after passing the legislature because the state constitution requires it. For example, a tax increase or change to the state constitution might require voter approval. You can visit the site of the for more information. -- ] 01:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Various maneuverings in the middle ages (including the infamous Fourth Crusade) certainly gave many Byzantines a negative view of western Catholics, so that toward the end some frankly preferred conquest by Muslims to a Christian alliance which would involve Byzantine religious and political subordination to the European West (see discussion at ]). But the Byzantines generally considered themselves to be the real Romans, and called themselves "Romaioi" much more often than they called themselves Greek (of course, "Byzantine" is a later retroactive term). ] (]) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Some states have non-binding referenda, while others have binding proposals (meaning it becomes law if passed). ] 01:50, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
== When did winking originate? == | |||
::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 == | |||
On the subject of ]...when did it start? Is this something that has been around for longer than we have records of? | |||
How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) | |||
I became intrigued on this subject because in my English class, we watched a production of ] where at the very end, ] ''winks'' to show that her whole little speech about how women should be subservient to men wasn't what she truly thought. | |||
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) | |||
It's not written into the script, so I was wondering not only if this sort of body language existed when Shakespeare's plays were originally being performed, but also at what time winking actually started. =) | |||
--] 22:40, 5 November 2006 (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 this a movie or a stage production? If you think about Shakespeare's original productions in Elizabethan theatres, like the Globe, a wink would simply have been lost on most of the audience, too far from the stage to pick it up. To be honest with you I think this is a question without an answer, a little akin to when did frowning or scowling or any other form of expression or cultural gesture start? ] 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::] was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though. | |||
::Live audience, taped for television. I was thinking that my question wouldn't be able to be answered as well, but perhaps hoping that winking was perhaps a gesture like shaking hands, which has some sort of known origin, or at least a few theories about its origin. ] 02:44, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
:] has often been regarded as a ''problematic'' play in modern times, because headstrong Kate, one of Shakespeare's most memorable heroines, is apparently completely subjugated by the end. I've been involved in productions of the play and its not just a problem "politically" it's also a problem ''dramatically'' because there's really not a clear explanation in the play of how or why she changes so thoroughly -- it gets sort of rushed at the end. Several modern directors have made the choice (in one way or another, sometimes more subtley than a wink) to imply at the end that either: a)Kate is faking it and will return to her old behaviour soon or b) she and Petruchio have developed a relationship of equals and she is pretending to be subjugated to help him win the wager. Either way, nothing of the sort is definitively there in the original text and it's all left to interpretation. So regardless of whether or not winking existed in Shakespeare's time, it's highly unlikely it would have been a part of the production. However, I have a vague memory of some other winking occurring ''in'' a Shakespeare (though I can't remember where) which would come closer to answering your question. ;) ] 01:55, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
::From ] a play I'm not terribly familiar with: | |||
: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) | |||
:::''Posthumus.'' | |||
:::I tell thee, fellow, there are none want eyes to | |||
:::direct them the way I am going, but such as wink and | |||
:::will not use them. | |||
:::''First Gaoler.''' | |||
:::What an infinite mock is this, that a man should | |||
:::have the best use of eyes to see the way of | |||
:::blindness! I am sure hanging's the way of winking. | |||
::::] 02:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:] was initially buried at Arlington. ] (]) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Also, from one of Shakespeare's contemporary's (mocking the audience of his plays): ''You will see such heaving and shoving, such itching and shouldering to sit by the women, such care for their garments that they be not trod on . . . such toying, such smiling, such '''winking''', such manning them home ... that it is a right comedy to mark their behaviour" (Stephen Gosson, "The School of Abuse", 1579).'' (emphasis mine) ] 02:22, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
:::Pretty helpful information, about winking in Shakespeare's other work. I had watched a 1976 performance which was in front of a live audience, but taped for television, so, to me, the wink was pretty obvious, but to those who were in the back row during the original taping...I don't know how they would have seen it. ] 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
= December 17 = | |||
I have no idea how it originated, but winking is mentioned half a dozen time in the Bible, e.g. Job 15:12, Psalms 35:19.--] 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Metternich's views on University professors and private property == | |||
== Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800 == | |||
Many years ago I saw Metternich (Prince Klemens von Metternich) quoted as having said that he could not stand university professors because none of them had any respect for private property. Is there any source to substantiate this, or any similar comment? (I do not need anything on his general views, or his measures,-- such as the Carlsbad decrees,-- on Universities, students, professors, censorship, and so on.) Many thanks, Stephen Scott. | |||
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) | |||
:I do not know of such a quotation, and there is very little in Misplaced Pages itself which might be of assistance to you: the page on ] is, to be blunt, far from satisfactory. As far as I am aware the chief thrust of his policy in the area of education was to restrict-or eliminate-the perpetuation of socially harmful doctrines, like constitutionalism, republicanism, liberalism and nationalism. As far as the sanctity of private property is concerned I would have assumed that the views of most professors would not have been that be that far removed from those of Metternich himself. ] 23:53, 5 November 2006 (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) | |||
Dear Clio,-- Many thanks for responding with your thoughts. Indeed, private property is par excellence an institution as to which sympathetic opinion can straddle the political spectrum between autocrats, aristocrats, gentry, and the bourgeoisie. I do remember once seeing some opinion, along the lines of that which I quoted, attributed to Metternich, and I posted my query on the odd chance that someone amongst the many sophisticated readers just might happen to recognize it. And I venture to add that, in my experience, academics are not, as a class, typically the staunchest defenders of property rights. (On the subject of property and economic liberalism, I am also fond of the remark often attributed to Guizot,-- even if perhaps at least partly apocryphal,-- "Bourgeois, enrichissez vous!" (It is taken up elsewhere on this website.) Thanks again, Stephen Scott. | |||
:] 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. | |||
:You're welcome, Stephen. Sorry I was not able to be of greater assistance. ] 03:15, 6 November 2006 (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: | |||
=November 6= | |||
:::{{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.}} | |||
== S.M.O.M. == | |||
:::: | |||
::::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): | |||
Here's a question I haven't been able to answer by reading the Misplaced Pages article. A few months ago, I saw a program on ], which explained about S.M.O.M. (Sovereign Military Order of Malta). It is, according to the program, the smallest country on earth, and is located in Rome (like the Vatican). ] is what Misplaced Pages has to say, but it doesn't even say it's a country. I know it exists, because they even gave the adress and showed license plates; besides, the History Channel wouldn't lie (would they?). No one believes the existance of such a place, and to convice people, I have to repeat ''everything'' in the program, while I would normally just cite Misplaced Pages. I'd apreciate help. Thanks | ] <font color="MidnightBlue">]</font> 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
:] (]) 12:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== When was the first bat mitzvah? == | |||
:Our article does not say it is a country, because it isn't a country. SMOM ''claims'' sovereignty under international law and ''"has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. (Its claims of sovereignty are disputed by some scholars.) ... However, unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican City, SMOM has no sovereign territory since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers"."'' Until and unless other states recognise SMOM as a sovereign nation like the Vatican City, it is wrong to claim that it is "the smallest country on earth", or indeed, a country at all. ] 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
] has a short history section, all of which is about bar mitzvah. When was the first bat mitzvah? What is its history? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Wow, interesting. I believe that ] is still regarded as the smallest independent nation on earth, but I found this (randomly online :) | |||
:::''The S.M.O.M. is an ancient organization founded under the aegis of the Roman Catholic church during the Crusades to protect pligrims on their way to the Holy Land. It now functions as a Catholic charitable organization (running a number of hospitals throughout the world), and enjoys limited diplomatic status as a "sovereign entity", complete with passports, coinage (via the world's smallest national mint), license plates (via a special contract with the Italian government), an (unofficial) amateur radio license prefix (1A0) and a post office (Postage stamps are a major source of income). The S.M.O.M. headquarters, consisting of a building and courtyard in Rome, Italy, is officially the world's smallest self-governing sovereign territory (roughly twice the size of a standard tennis court, small enough to have a mailing address*), and exchanges ambassadors and diplomatic representatives with over 80 countries.'' | |||
:::''To quote the website: "After the loss of the island of Malta, the Order settled permanently in Rome, Italy, in 1834. Its two headquarters, granted with extraterritoriality, are the Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68 - where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet - and the Villa Malta on the Aventine. The latter hosts the Grand Priory of Rome, the Embassy of the Order to the Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to the Italian Republic." | |||
:::''On August 24, 1994, the S.M.O.M was granted Permenant Observer Status in the United Nations, allowing them to participate in the discussions of the U.N. General Assembly.'' | |||
:To be clear, I am more asking when the bat mitzvah ritual became part of common Jewish practice. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It wouldn't serve as a good source for a Misplaced Pages article, and the link it provides is to a website in Italian. But I think you might be somewhat right -- the distinction is is whatever the difference between the "world's smallest self-governing entity" and "the world's smallest independent nation." I expect the distinction is important somehow. Cheers. ] 02:07, 6 November 2006 (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 = | |||
:::If you look at ] you will see that the order does not claim to be a 'country', but a 'sovereign entity', quite a different concept altogether. It enjoys a certain extra-territorial status in the Vatican City, but has no direct authority. The status is a residue from the time the Knights controlled Rhodes and then Malta. The Order exists in international law a little like a 'government in exile'; though this is purely honorary and formalist in practice ] 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Well there it is, serves me right for going straight to google...] 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Major feminist achievements prior to 18th century == | |||
:::::This is all very interesting, but would being a sovereign entity make it a government? And would a government with some territory be regarded as a country? | ] <font color="MidnightBlue">]</font> 11:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
What would be the most important feminist victories prior to the 18th and 19th centuries? I'm looking for specific laws or major changes (anywhere in the world), not just minor improvements in women's pursuit of equality. Something on the same scale and importantance as the women's suffrage. ] (]) 11:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, and no. No large tract of land, no country. Citing the Vatican as a country just shows it is mislabelled due to clout, and should not be considered a country either. ] 14:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not aware of any occuring without being foreseable a set of conditions such as the perspective of a minimal equal representation both in the judiciary and law enforcement. Those seem to be dependent on technological progress, maybe particularly law enforcement although the judiciary sometimes heavily relies on recording capabilities. Unfortunately ] is not very explicitly illustrating the genesis of its sociological dynamics. --] (]) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Before universal male suffrage became the norm in the 19th century, also male ]s did not pull significant political weight, at least in Western society, so any feminist "victories" before then can only have been minor improvements in women's rights in general. --] 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Changes regarding divorce, property rights of women, protections against sexual assault or men's mistreatment of women could have have been significant, right? (Though I don't know what those changes were) ] (]) 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't think many of those were widely, significantly changed prior to the 18th century, though the World is large and diverse, and history is long, so it's difficult to generalise. See ]. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 11:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In the English monarchy, when ] died in 1135 with no living male legitimate child, ] followed over whether ] or ] should inherit the throne. (It was settled by ].) But in 1553 when ] died, ] inherited the throne and those who objected did it on religious grounds and not because she was a woman: in fact there was an attempt to place ] on the throne instead. --] (]) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Ice age? == | |||
:::Although Mary's detractors believed that her ] was a result of her gender; a point made by the ] reformer ], who published a ] entitled '']''. When the Protestant ] inherited the throne, there was a quick about face; Elizabeth was compared to the Biblical ], who had freed the Israelites from the ]ites and led them to an era of peace and prosperity, and was obviously a divine exception to the principle that females were unfit to rule. ] (]) 12:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:A possibly fictional account in the film ] has the proto-feminist ] anticipating ] orbits about two millenia before that gentleman, surely a significant feminine achievement. ] (]) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{xt|"The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies: It inflates Hypatia's achievements and incorrectly portrays her as finding a proof of Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever studied."}} (from our Hypatia article linked above). ] (]) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Even if true (we have no proof she did not embrace the heliocentric model while developing the theory of gravitation to boot), it did not result in a major change in the position of women. --] 03:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: To some extent it is going to depend on what is considered a "feminist victory". | |||
:::: There has steadily been more evidence of numerous female Viking warriors, and similarly the ] in Japan. | |||
:::: Many Native American tribal cultures had strong roles for women. Iroquois women, for example, played the major role in appointing and removing chiefs (though the chiefs were all male, as far as we know). | |||
:::: And, of course, a certain number of women have, one way or another, achieved a great deal in a society that normally had little place for female achievement, though typically they eventually were brought down one way or another. Besides queens regnant and a number of female regents (including in the Roman Empire), two examples that leap to mind are ] and ]. - ] | ] 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Intolerance by D. W. Griffith == | |||
:Someone told me that the pentagon was interested in the results of a report about an upcoming ice age. The thermohalen conveyer is supposedly going to stop, and create another ice age. The person who told me heard this on the radio, so they didn't get the name of the report. As in the question I asked a section above, I saw this on TV (]), so it's a scientific possibility. I'd like the name of the report if possible. Thank you! | ] <font color="MidnightBlue">]</font> 01:58, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
::If the Pentagon is preparing for an Ice Age it is clearly, and perhaps typically, moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the human race. ] 02:32, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
::I don't know what the report was named, but you might want to look at ]. And from what I've heard, Europe may well see significant cooling after enough ice in Greenland melts. The fresh water flowing into the northern Atlantic might stop the global ocean currents that bring warm water north to Europe, which keep the continent warmer than it would be otherwise. Maybe ask your question at the science reference desk. ] 05:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::<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 == | |||
:::Alright, I'll ask the question over there too. | ] <font color="MidnightBlue">]</font> 11:45, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
:::] gave me a good link at the Science Reference desk. ] It's close enough to what I wanted, thank you too. | ] <font color="MidnightBlue">]</font> 13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The uncanniness of the ] would be a specific subclass of this. --] 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== India Export Tax == | |||
== Yearbooks == | |||
Where can I find articles regarding export tax of India on Portland Cement? Do they have an export tax? --] 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why ]s are often named '''after''' years that they concern? For example, a yearbook that concerns year 2024 and tells statistics about that year might be named '''2025''' Yearbook, with 2024 Yearbook instead concerning 2023? Which is the reason for that? --] (]) 21:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Export taxes are one of the stupidest taxes ever invented, I would think India would be smarter than that. They just damage their own industry, exports, and economy. Import taxes, on the other hand, can help protect native industries. ] 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Actually stu, I have to disagree. Export taxes do have their use, because selling in the foreign becomes more expensive selling in the homecountry somewhat more interesting. usually this also discourages the settlement of low-wage factories which usually are BAD for the health standard of a country. also the extra effect is that the production of cement in this case which is pretty highly polluting (at least with the techniques used in india). ] 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever. --] 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In the example of a high school yearbook, 2025 would be the year in which the 2024-2025 school year ended and the students graduated. Hence, "the Class of 2025" though the senior year started in 2024. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry, that makes no sense. They should aim to sell in both foreign AND domestic markets. Cutting off one market won't help the other. As for environmental protection, the way to do that is with tough environmental protection laws, not by destroying industry. That way, if it's possible to produce cement without breaking the laws, they will, and if not, they will go out of business. ] 14:52, 6 November 2006 (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 = | |||
:::Also, it's not the presence of low-wage jobs that are bad for the people, it's the absence of high-wage jobs. Adding low-wage jobs to an economy never hurts anything, unless it comes at the cost of high-wage jobs, and there's no reason to think that high-wage jobs would be destroyed by exporting goods. If anything, a few high-wage jobs should be created (engineering, etc.). ] 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source? == | |||
== Catholic response to Calvinism == | |||
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) | |||
Are there any specific Catholic documents that contain reactions or refuations of Calvinism? (paticualry the 5 Points of Calvinism){{unsigned|68.6.163.95}} | |||
: 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)? == | |||
:To begin with have a look over the page on the ]. If you do not find some general outlines there we can try some finer tuning. You should also read the page on ]. The chief Catholic accusation against Calvinism seems to be that innovation in theology inevitably leads to degeneration and moral decay. ] 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Don't forget that the ] got going with ] in 1517, year before Calvin entered the fray.] 14:34, 6 November 2006 (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". | |||
:Pish posh. There are dozens of attacks on Calvin from other Protestant churches as well as from the Roman Catholic Church. The chief Church of England counter came in ]'s ''],'' but the main attacks were on the extreme form of Augustinianism that Calvin endorsed and what the English theologians called "enthusiasm" or "phrenzy," which they had a great deal of trouble with. Direct inspiration and the rejection of theology set the Calvinists in England directly at odds with every other group, including the "Independents" (Baptists) and Quakers. Remember: Calvinist in England = ]. ] 18:32, 6 November 2006 (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? | |||
== Children == | |||
Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play: | |||
If there was a child who starred in a movie that was rated R, would they be permitted to watch the movie? | |||
:If you're referring to the U.S. "R" rating, yes but being in the film isn't required. Any child under 17 years of age can watch an R rated movie so long as they have a parent or guardian accompanying them. ]|] 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::What about a film under the Australian "R" rating, where you do have to be 18 or over to see it? --] 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::An "R" rated movie is not generally a collection of scenes all of which are "R" rated. Remember that someone could be "in" a movie and only be in very innocuous scenes, and never see anything controversial during the filming, so there is no sense in which they wold have already seen the scenes which generate the "R" rating. ] 14:36, 6 November 2006 (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. | |||
== Compulsive Lying == | |||
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) | |||
me and my mates are finding it impossible to remember the single word term for a compujlsive liar. can you help us? | |||
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." | |||
It's called . Next time, make sure you make a "new question" when you ask it. The link is at the top of the page. ;) --] 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I would have though that the more standard expression would be ]. ] 09:12, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
== Clothing and housing in 13th century Christian Spain == | |||
:::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) | |||
What clothing was worn in 13th century Spain, and what types of houses were built? ] 04:56, 6 November 2006 (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 = | |||
:Have a trawl through the ]. You will find some general category indicators at the bottom of the page. However, a word of caution: beware of illustrations of 'typical' fashions. You will find that they are anything but typical, showing only what the more affluent would be able to wear. Most of the peasantry and urban poor would use the most basic forms of clothing, usually a simple gown, shirt and doublet, if even that. Housing is more problematic, and will range from castles to hovels, hovels being more typical, but less enduring, than castles. Medieval Spain is little different in this regard from the rest of Europe. ] 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Mike Johnson == | |||
::Unfortunately, our article on the history of Western fashion doesn't go back any further than the 16th century. However, here are a few web sources on fashion from the 13th century: , , and . The Annenberg site also has a section on . Clothing was probably fairly similar across Europe, with greater differences between classes than between regions. Peasants tended to wear rough woolen hose and tunics. Nobles wore finer and more colorful woolens, more linen, fur, jewelry, and perhaps some silk. Housing, on the other hand, would have varied from region to region depending on materials available locally. Peasant housing was often built of ], though in Spain, ] was often used. Peasant cottages typically had ] roofs and only one room, with perhaps an attached stall for animals (though in one-room cottages, animals often slept with the family). Noble's manor houses were more often built with timber framed walls and slate roofs. ] 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
I saw ] on TV a day or two ago. (He was speaking from some official podium ... I believe about the recent government shutdown possibility, the Continuing Resolution, etc.) I was surprised to see that he was wearing a ]. The color of the yarmulke was a close match to the color of Johnson's hair, so I had to look closely and I had to look twice. I said to myself "I never knew that he was Jewish". It bothered me, so I looked him up and -- as expected -- he is not Jewish. Why would he be wearing a yarmulke? Thanks. ] (]) 07:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== An odd question for The Stranger == | |||
: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) | |||
First, I'll admit, this is a homework question. | |||
I have read The Outsider (English translation of The Stranger, by Albert Camus), and I have a bunch of questions to answer. | |||
This particular question is: "Is Meursault a 'person'? (a human person, a true individual, to be contrasted with a cliché, a stereotype or one sadly reduced to common sense)." | |||
What do you think this is asking for? How should I go about answering it? | |||
What I'm thinking right now is to say Meursault is more a metaphor than a real person... but that seems a bit weak. | |||
Thanks much in advance! | |||
] 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: OK, thanks. I did not know that was a "thing". To wear one to show support. First I ever heard of that or seen that. Thanks. ] (]) 13:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Read over, but please do not reproduce (it is too obvious!) the article on ]. As a character Meursault is real enough, but he suffers from the weakness of all novels written to illustrate a point in philosophy-he appears little better than an epiphenomenon, rather than a complete human being. The best kind of novel should convince you that the character exists independently, if you like, from the author's creative imagination. Meursault does not. He only exists to give life to Camus' notion of the absurd, and becomes, in himself, 'absurd' in more senses than the author intended. I once heard Camus described as the 'bargain basement of modern literature'. I can provide no better summary than that. ] 09:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: He may also have just come from, or be shortly going to, some (not necessarily religious) event held in a synagogue, where he would wear it for courtesy. I would do the same, and have my (non-Jewish) grandfather's kippah, which he wore for this purpose not infrequently, having many Jewish friends. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: I assume you mis-spoke: ''to show his support for ... anti-semitism''. ] (]) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Oh, not bargain basement, though flat, of course. Absurdist literature has at least the advantage of ''wanting'' characters to be transparently fictive and philosophical (Beckett's plays, Brecht's "Epic Theater"), but Camus isn't part of the absurdist literary movement, despite ostensibly being a founder of it (just as Pirandello cannot manage to be unbelievable). That said, Camus's novel has some virtues. Many have found its sense of isolation and disenfranchisement intriguing (though I never did), and, on the completely other hand, he makes it easy to reject absurdism by pointing out the actual implications of an Absurdist life. (He showed how bankrupt the philosophy was, if you put it into action, in other words.) If one wants a philosopher novelist with some believability or usefulness, I'd recommend Hesse. ] 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It is somewhat customary, also for male goyim, to don a yarmulke when visiting a synagogue or attending a Jewish celebration or other ceremony, like Biden while lecturing at a synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia (and under him Trump while groping the ]). Was Johnson speaking at a synagogue? --] 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It may have been . --] 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Precisely, {{u|Lambian}}. Here is Johnson's . ] (]) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::This year Hanukkah begins unusually late in the Gregorian calendar, starting at sundown on December 25, when Congress will not be in session. This coincidence can be described by the portmanteau ]. So, the Congressional observance of Hanukkah was ahead of schedule this year. Back in 2013, Hanukkah arrived unusually early, during the US holiday of ], resulting in the portmanteau of ]. ] (]) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::When you want to check the correlation between Jewish and Christian holidays, you can use the fact that Orthodox Christian months almost always correspond to Jewish months. For Chanucah, the relevant correlation is Emma/Kislev. From the table ], in 2024 (with ] 11) ''Emma'' began on 3 December, so 24 ''Emma'' is 26 December. ] (]) 15:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thanks, all! Much appreciated! ] (]) 02:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== A few interest rates questions == | |||
== Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol == | |||
Wasn't really sure where to put an economics question...but seeing as economics is meant to be a 'social science' and 'society' is listed in the humanities desk...figured this was the best place to try. | |||
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) | |||
1. Basically, i've got in my economics textbook that "''A common 'rule of thumb' is that monetary policy should be tightened when nominal interest rates are lower than nominal GDP growth''". | |||
: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) | |||
Why? I figured if nominal interest rates were lower than nominal GDP growth, then people would have little incentive to save, since they'd get more return from investing than interest from saving. That would mean increased aggregate demand, since investment is a component of it, which leads to inflation. So therefore, increased interest rate would be the logical thing to do since increasing interest rate reduces consumption and investmnet, therefore reducing aggregate demand, therefore cooling inflation. Is this the only reason? | |||
::There is a stub at ] (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: {{Ping|Askedonty}} Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error. | |||
:: . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you. Those results were in fact detailed enough that we may even document the circumstances associated with Mgr. Chauveau writing the original letter to the Society. recounts his buying of specimens in the country, then his learning about the interest for the species in British diplomatic circles about. The French text is available, with the ] servers not under excessive stress, in ''Bulletin de la Société zoologique d'acclimatation'' 2°sér t. VII aka "1870" p.502 at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb345084433/date; an other account mentioning the specific species is to be found p.194 . --] (]) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= December 23 = | |||
2. I've got, in the same book, that "''if nominal interest is zero and inflation is below zero, there is a negative rate of real interest.''" | |||
== London Milkman photo == | |||
I don't really understand this. For a start, real interest is nominal interest minus inflation. So if nominal interest is zero and inflation is below zero, then shouldn't the real interest be above zero? Since zero minus a negative number gives you a positive number. | |||
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) | |||
Also, i don't really see how it would work. Let's just say the economy is deflating at 2% (so an inflation rate of negative 2), and i have a $100 bill in my hand. If i just hold onto it, i'd still have a $100 bill in my hand one year later. If i put it into a bank at 0% interest, i'd also end up with just a 100$ bill after one year. Of course, after a year, the 100$ is worth more because things are becoming cheaper, but whether i hold on to it or if i put it into a bank at 0% interest, i'd end up with the same. | |||
: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) | |||
I admit this is sort of a homework question. For the record, i've already (tried) reading the relevant articles here, and they really haven't helped much. Would really appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me here. --] 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "] Archive", which might mean it was in ]. ] ] 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. ] (]) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? ] ] 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. ] (]) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of ''Picture Post'' imply that it might have appeared in ''Picture Post''? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? ] ] 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. ] (]) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton. ] ] 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Not in the ''Daily Mirror'' of Thursday 10 October 1940. ] (]) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{Ping|DuncanHill}} Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::a lot of searches suggest it was the ''Daily Mail''. ] (]) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{Ping|Pigsonthewing}} I've checked the ''Mirror'' for the 11th, and the rest of the week. I've checked the ''News Chronicle'', the ''Express'', and the ''Herald'' for the 10th. ''Mail'' not on BNA. ] (]) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::As general context, from my professional experience of picture researching back in the day, photo libraries and agencies quite often tried to claim photos and other illustrations in their collections as their own IP even when they were in fact not their IP and even when they were out of copyright. Often the same illustration was actually available from multiple providers, though obviously (in that pre-digital era) one paid a fee to whichever of them you borrowed a copy from for reproduction in a book or periodical. Attributions in published material may not, therefore, accurately reflect the true origin of an image. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I just discovered this for myself with Bosman 2008 in ''The National Gallery in Wartime''. In the back of the book it says the ''London Milkman'' photo is licensed from ] on p. 127. I was leaning towards reading this as an error of some kind before I saw your comment. Interestingly, the Wikpedia article on Corbis illustrates part of the problem. ] (]) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Are we sure it was published at the time? I haven't been able to find any meaningful suggestion of which paper it appeared in. I've found a few sources (eg ) giving a date in September. I've found several suggesting it tied in with "]", which of course was almost unknown in the War. ] (]) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think Science would be the right place to post this. On number 1, you seem to have figured it out on your own. An overheated economy can lead to an oversupply of goods and satiated demand, causing a recession or even a depression, so it's best to "put the brakes on" before this happens. I agree with you on number 2, they made a mistake. ] 14:42, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
:(After edit conflict) I do not claim to be an expert, but I would say to your question #1: The reason that you have given is the main reason for keeping interest rates at or above the rate of nominal GDP growth. Another reason is that low interest rates can cause destabilizing asset inflation. As for your question 2., I agree with StuRat that you are correct and your textbook is in error. ] 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman? == | |||
== Which congressional district is Tucson AZ in? == | |||
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) | |||
I'm English, try not to bite me for asking. | |||
:Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at ], a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later ] was the United Provinces, ] the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. ] (]) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that ] was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. ] (]) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as ], that's for sure! ] (]) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::This general region was originally part of ] aka ], possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, ]'s ''Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country'' (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) ] (]) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver ], whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country <small> was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --] (]) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
] | |||
:In Caesar's '']'', the Belgians ('']'') were separated from the Germans ('']'') by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands. --] 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. ] (]) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Indigenous territory/Indian reservations == | |||
I cant find out on the pages for the 7th or 8th Districts, or page for Tucson (at least not definitively). I think the city is split in two amongst the 7th and 8th districts although it is hard to tell from low res maps. Please help. --] 13:55, 6 November 2006 (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> | |||
:You are correct that Tucson is split between those two districts. The city center is in the 7th District, while the more affluent residential areas to the north and east are in the 8th District. is a more detailed map of the district boundaries in Tucson. ] 14:36, 6 November 2006 (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) | |||
You are awesome. Exactly what I wanted :) I'll edit ] incase anyone else ever wants to know. --] 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
= December 24 = | |||
== Hypothetical Senate Trial of Nixon == | |||
== Testicles in art == | |||
As we all know Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9th, 1974, even before being impeached by the House, not to mention conviction by the Senate. Impeachment by the House was pretty much a certainty. I'm curious though about what the article calls his "probable" conviction by the Senate. | |||
:] | |||
What are some famous or iconic depictions of testicles in visual art (painting, sculpture, etc)? Pre 20th century is more interesting to me but I will accept more modern works as well. ] (]) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's '']'' (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. ] (]) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the ] (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the ], through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! ] (]) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The article you're looking for is ]. ] (]) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:And maybe the ]. ]|] 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:], somewhat well-known in the West through ]. ] ] 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation? == | |||
First off, given the timing of his resignation (just three months before a midterm election), should impeachment proceedings drag on a few months, which Senate (1972 or 1974) would preside over the conviction proceedings? In either case, by implication, according to Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, only 34 of the 100 sitting Senators would be enough to block any guilty verdict. I realize that even among Republicans Senators, he lost a great deal of support. I'm just wondering if any research has been done as to the likely vote of each Senator, (be it the '72 or the '74 Senate,) and how close it is speculated that Nixon would have come to the "magic number" of 34. Any thoughts or references would be appreciated. Thanks! Oh, an by the way, please forgive me for forgetting to mention that the jurisdiction I'm referring to is the United States of America. :) ] 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
The Habsburg were descended (in the male line) from a female (empress ]). They were the Habsburg rulers of Austria because of her, not because of their Lorraine male ancestor. So their name goes against general European patrilinear naming customs. Sometimes, starting with ] they are called Habsburg-Lorraine, but that goes against the rule that the name of the father comes first (I've never heard that anyone was called Lorraine-Habsburg) and most people don't even bother with the Lorraine part, if they even know about it. | |||
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). | |||
== Spanish History 1010 == | |||
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. | |||
Hi, | |||
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)? | |||
::Try here ] or ]. ] 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Need Metal Band Name == | |||
: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) | |||
My friend needs some help looking for a name for his black metal band. It should be or at least sound Egyptian, Babylonian, or Persian and preferrably based on a myth cycle of some sort. Any suggestions? Thanks. | |||
::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) | |||
:I know the Admins will spank me for answering with a joke, but I can't help, upon hearing the terms "Metal Band" and "]" to suggest "]". Oh well, the name's already been used. Sorry guys, for the joke answer, I promise to never do it again, except under exceptional circumstances. ] 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
= December 25 = | |||
:I have a suggestion: Use Misplaced Pages to find a name. There are many articles you may be interested in, such as ], ], and ]. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Death Row commutations by Biden == | ||
Biden commuted nearly all of the Federal Death Row sentences a few days ago. Now, what’s the deal with the Military Death Row inmates? Are they considered "federal" and under the purview of Biden? Or, if not, what’s the distinction? Thanks. ] (]) 02:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
While I'm at it, I might as well ask this one. In the run-up to the 2000 election, I remember watching a Conan O'Brien spoof where this Clinton impersonator outlined his strategy at getting around the two-term limit of the ]. Reading it carefully, it only forbids one from being "'''''elected''' to the office of the '''President'''''" more than twice. ''His'' "plan" was to get onto the Gore ticket as candidate for ''Vice''-President. Gore would then immediately resign, then, pursuant to the ], Clinton would be sworn in as President, and essentially be allowed to serve a third term. In fact, he could even go so far as nominate Gore as his VP, and with Congress' confirmation, we'd essenially have ''yet another'' four years of a Clinton-Gore administration! Of course it was meant as an absurd joke, but poring carefully over the words of the ], it actually seems like, technically at least, the ridiculous plan would actually be Constitutionally legal. Am I missing something? If not, I may actually consider giving ] a call! <small>I'm joking of course, I hope that last line hasn't caused any of you to suffer any serious psychological trauma.</small> :--) | |||
: and the various tabs you can click from there include a lot of information. There hasn't been a military execution since 1961 and there are only four persons on the military death row at this point. The President does have the power to commute a death sentence issued under the ]. It is not clear why President Biden did not address those four cases when he commuted the sentences of most federal death row inmates a few days ago, although two of the four cases (see ) are linked to terrorism, so would likely not have been commuted anyway. ] (]) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
On a more serious note, the ], describing, ''inter alia'', how upon the removal, death or resignation of the President, the VP becomes President. Yet this Amendment was only ratified in '67, four years after JFK's assination and LBJ's swearing in. Without this particular Amendment, what was the Constitutional basis for automatically assuming that LBJ, or Truman for that matter, or even those VPs further back in history who were sworn in as President upon the death of the sitting President were the obvious successors? ] 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Article II Section 1: ''In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.'' The 25th Amendment article does describe why that first section is needed: does "shall devolve on" mean "take over the job"? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Coca Romano's portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania == | |||
::Thanks JP. I should have gone over the article more thoroughly before asking. It just threw me off that the 25th Amendment seems to ''introduce'' a concept that had been practiced routinely beforehand. It hadn't occured to me that it could merely be clarification of previously existing text in the main body of the Constitution. Still, though, as the article states, the concept became pretty clear as far back as when ] succeeded ] upon the latter's death. Even moreso ever since ]'s succession upon the death of ], and as I've mentioned, the cases of Truman and LBJ. The section would seem be rather redundant, given all the precedent set, and akin to passing an Amendment authorizing the courts to excercize ], a function they've been excercizing without explicit Constitutional authority ever since the precedent was set in '']''. On the other hand, if it helps to clarify things, even unnecessarily, I suppose there's no harm. ] 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
I am trying to work out when Coca Romano's coronation portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania were actually completed and unveiled. This is with an eye to possibly uploading a photo of them to this wiki: they are certainly still in copyright in Romania (Romano lived until 1983), but probably not in the U.S. because of publication date. | |||
== The Veil Controversy == | |||
The coronation took place in 1922 at Alba Iulia. The portraits show Ferdinand and Marie in their full regalia that they wore at the coronation. They appear to have been based on photographs taken at the coronation, so they must have been completed after the event, not before. | |||
Whats the whole debate regarding the veil made such a big issue around the world? | |||
A few pieces of information I have: there is no date on the canvasses. The pieces are in the collection of the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu (inventory numbers 2503 for the picture of Marie and 2504 for Ferdinand) , p. 36-37], and were on display this year at Art Safari in Bucharest, which is where I photographed them. If they were published (always a tricky concept for a painting, but I'm sure they were rapidly and widely reproduced) no later than 1928, or in a few days 1929, we can upload my photo in this wiki. - ] | ] 04:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Whose freedom is being questioned? The west or the religion? Or Is there some element of choice in the religion? | |||
Or is the world slaves of freedom and western democracy where there is no rationality of thought and the West is imposing its way of life as a compulsion on the east ? | |||
(I've uploaded the image to Flickr, if anyone wants a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54225746973/). - ] | ] 05:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Or is the east under a compulsion to accept the age of plastic surgery and nip tuck?? ~~ |
Latest revision as of 14:45, 25 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)
- To some extent it is going to depend on what is considered a "feminist victory".
- There has steadily been more evidence of numerous female Viking warriors, and similarly the Onna-musha in Japan.
- Many Native American tribal cultures had strong roles for women. Iroquois women, for example, played the major role in appointing and removing chiefs (though the chiefs were all male, as far as we know).
- And, of course, a certain number of women have, one way or another, achieved a great deal in a society that normally had little place for female achievement, though typically they eventually were brought down one way or another. Besides queens regnant and a number of female regents (including in the Roman Empire), two examples that leap to mind are Joan of Arc and Sor Juana de la Cruz. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if true (we have no proof she did not embrace the heliocentric model while developing the theory of gravitation to boot), it did not result in a major change in the position of women. --Lambiam 03:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies: It inflates Hypatia's achievements and incorrectly portrays her as finding a proof of Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever studied." (from our Hypatia article linked above). Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Intolerance by D. W. Griffith
Why did D. W. Griffith make the film Intolerance after making the very popular and racist film The Birth of a Nation? What did he want to convey? 174.160.82.127 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The lead of our article states that, in numerous interviews, Griffith made clear that the film was a rebuttal to his critics and he felt that they were, in fact, the intolerant ones. --Lambiam 22:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For not tolerating his racism? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. Griffith thought he was presenting the truth, however unpopular, and that the criticism was meant to stifle his voice, not because the opinions he expressed were wrong but because they were unwelcome. --Lambiam 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- For not tolerating his racism? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Term for awkward near-similarity
Is there a term for the feeling produced when two things are nearly but not quite identical, and you wish they were either fully identical or clearly distinct? I think this would be reminiscent of the narcissism of small differences, but applied to things like design or aesthetics – or like a broader application of the uncanny valley (which is specific to imitation of humans). --71.126.56.235 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The uncanniness of the uncanny valley would be a specific subclass of this. --Lambiam 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yearbooks
Why yearbooks are often named after years that they concern? For example, a yearbook that concerns year 2024 and tells statistics about that year might be named 2025 Yearbook, with 2024 Yearbook instead concerning 2023? Which is the reason for that? --40bus (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is good for marketing, a 2025 yearbook sounds more up to date than a 2024 one. TSventon (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- One argument may be that it is the year of publication, being the 2025 edition of whatever. --Lambiam 22:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the example of a high school yearbook, 2025 would be the year in which the 2024-2025 school year ended and the students graduated. Hence, "the Class of 2025" though the senior year started in 2024. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of a yearbook is to highlight the past year activities, for example a 2025 yearbook is to highlight the activities of 2024. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any yearbooks that are named after the same years that they concern, e.g. 2024 yearbook concerning 2024, 2023 yearbook concerning 2023 etc. --40bus (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- A professional baseball team will typically have a "2024 Yearbook" for the current season, since the entire season occurred in 2024. Though keep in mind that the 2024 yearbook would have come out at the start of the season, hence it actually covers stats from 2023 as well as rosters and schedules for 2024. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the UK, the magazine Private Eye releases an annual at the end of every year which is named in this way. It stands out from all the other comic/magazine annuals on the rack which are named after the following year. I worked in bookselling for years and always found this interesting. Turner Street (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any yearbooks that are named after the same years that they concern, e.g. 2024 yearbook concerning 2024, 2023 yearbook concerning 2023 etc. --40bus (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Distinguish between Almanac (for predictions) and Yearbook (for recollections). ¨Philvoids (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
December 21
Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta: source?
I once read in a George Will article (or it might have been in one of his short columns) that the University of Chicago or one of its departments used "Everything You Can Do, We Can Do Meta" as a motto, but it turned out this was completely (if unintentionally, at least on Will's part) made up. Does anyone else remember George Will making that claim? Regardless, has anyone any idea how George Will may have mis-heard or mis-remembered it? (I could never believe that he intentionally made it up.) Anyway, does anyone know the source of the phrase, or at least an earliest source. (Obviously it may have occurred to several people independently.) The earliest I've found on Google is a 2007 article in the MIT Technology Review. Anything earlier? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- describes it as "John Bell’s motto" and uses the reference
J. Bell, ‘Legal Theory in Legal Education – “Everything you can do, I can do meta…”’, in: S. Eng (red.), Proceedings of the 21st IVR World Congress: Lund (Sweden), 12-17 August 2003, Wiesbaden: Frans Steiner Verlag, p. 61.
. Polygnotus (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) - In his book I've Been Thinking, Daniel C. Dennett writes: '
Doug Hofstadter and I once had a running disagreement about who first came up with the quip “Anything you can do I can do meta”; I credited him and he credited me.
' Dennett credited Hofstadter (writing meta- with a hyphen) in Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds (1998). Hofstadter disavowed this claim in I am a Strange Loop, suggesting that the quip was Dennett's brainchild, writing, 'To my surprise, though, this “motto” started making the rounds and people quoted it back to me as if I had really thought it up and really believed it.
' - It is, of course, quite possible that this witty variation on Irving Berlin's "Anything You Can Do (I Can Do Better)" was invented independently again and again. In 1979, Arthur Allen Leff wrote, in an article in Duke Law Journal: '
My colleague, Leon Lipson, once described a certain species of legal writing as, “Anything you can do, I can do meta.”
' (Quite likely, John Bell (mis)quoted Lipson.) For other, likely independent examples, in 1986, it is used as the title of a technical report stressing the importance of metareasoning in the domain of machine learming (Morik, Katharina. Anything you can do I can do meta. Inst. für Angewandte Informatik, Projektgruppe KIT, 1986), and in 1995 we find this ascribed to cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. --Lambiam 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC) - (ec) He may have been mixing this up with "That's all well and good and practice, but how does it work in theory?" which is associated with the University of Chicago and attributed to Shmuel Weinberger, who is a professor there. Dekimasuよ! 14:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Did Sir John Hume get entrapped in his own plot (historically)?
In Shakespeare's "First Part of the Contention..." (First Folio: "Henry VI Part 2") there's a character, Sir John Hume, a priest, who manages to entrap the Duchess of Gloucester in the conjuring of a demon, but then gets caught in the plot and is sentenced to be "strangled on the gallows".
My question: Was Sir John Hume, the priest, a historical character? If he was, did he really get caught in the plot he laid for the Duchess, and end up being executed?
Here's what goes on in Shakespeare's play:
In Act 1, Scene 2 Sir John Hume and the Duchess of Gloucester are talking about using Margery Jordan "the cunning witch of Eye" and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, to raise a spirit that will answer the Duchess's questions. It is clear Hume is being paid by the Duke of Suffolk to entrap the Duchess. His own motivation is not political but simple lucre.
In Act 1, Scene 4 the witch Margery Jordan, John Southwell and Sir John Hume, the two priests, and Roger Bolingbroke, the conjuror, conjure a demon (Asnath) in front of the Duchess of Gloucester in order that she may ask him questions about the fate of various people, and they all get caught and arrested by the Duke of York and his men. (Hume works for Suffolk and Cardinal Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, not for York, so it is not through Hume that York knows of these goings on, but York on his part was keeping a watch on the Duchess)
Act 2, Scene 3 King Henry: (to Margery Jordan, John Southwell, Sir John Hume, and Roger Bolingbroke) "You four, from hence to prison back again; / From thence, unto the place of execution. / The witch in Smithfield shall be burned to ashes, / And you three shall be strangled on the gallows."
178.51.16.158 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- John Home or Hume (Home and Hume are pronounced identically) was Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester's confessor. According to this and this "Home, who had been indicted only for having knowledge of the activities of the others, was pardoned and continued in his position as canon of Hereford. He died in 1473." He does not seem to have been Sir John. I'm sure someone who knows more than me will be along soon. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this period "Sir" (and "Lady") could still be used as a vague title for people of some status, without really implying they had a knighthood. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Identically /hjuːm/ (HYOOM), to be clear. Card Zero (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and the First Part of the Contention is Henry Sixt Part II, not Part I! We also have articles about Roger Bolingbroke and Margery Jourdemayne, the Witch of Eye. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I corrected it now. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also an article for a Thomas Southwell (priest). In Shakespeare he is "John Southwell". The name "John Southwell" does appear in the text of the play itself (it is mentioned by Bolingbroke). I haven't checked if the quarto and the folio differ on the name. His dates seem to be consistent with this episode and Roger Bolingbroke does refer to the other priest as "Thomas Southwell". But nothing is mentioned in the article Thomas Southwell (priest) itself, so that article may be about some other priest named Thomas Southwell. In any case Roger Bolingbroke points out that only Roger Bolingbroke and Margery Jourdemayne were executed in connection with this affair. Shakespeare has them all executed. He must have been in a bad mood when he wrote that passage. Either that, or he just wanted to keep things simple. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that may well be our Southwell, according to "Chronicle of Gregory 1441. 27 Oct 1441. And on Syn Symon and Jude is eve was the wycche (age 26) be syde Westemyster brent in Smethefylde, and on the day of Symon and Jude the person of Syn Stevynnys in Walbroke, whyche that was one of the same fore said traytours , deyde in the Toure for sorowe." The Chronicle of Gregory, written by William Gregory is published by the Camden Society DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some experienced editor may then want to add these facts to his article, possibly using the Chronicle of Gregory as a source. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that may well be our Southwell, according to "Chronicle of Gregory 1441. 27 Oct 1441. And on Syn Symon and Jude is eve was the wycche (age 26) be syde Westemyster brent in Smethefylde, and on the day of Symon and Jude the person of Syn Stevynnys in Walbroke, whyche that was one of the same fore said traytours , deyde in the Toure for sorowe." The Chronicle of Gregory, written by William Gregory is published by the Camden Society DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
December 22
Mike Johnson
I saw Mike Johnson on TV a day or two ago. (He was speaking from some official podium ... I believe about the recent government shutdown possibility, the Continuing Resolution, etc.) I was surprised to see that he was wearing a yarmulke. The color of the yarmulke was a close match to the color of Johnson's hair, so I had to look closely and I had to look twice. I said to myself "I never knew that he was Jewish". It bothered me, so I looked him up and -- as expected -- he is not Jewish. Why would he be wearing a yarmulke? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Presumably to show his support for Israel and anti-semitism (and make inroads into the traditional Jewish-American support for the Democratic Party). Trump wore one too. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I did not know that was a "thing". To wear one to show support. First I ever heard of that or seen that. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- He may also have just come from, or be shortly going to, some (not necessarily religious) event held in a synagogue, where he would wear it for courtesy. I would do the same, and have my (non-Jewish) grandfather's kippah, which he wore for this purpose not infrequently, having many Jewish friends. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I did not know that was a "thing". To wear one to show support. First I ever heard of that or seen that. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you mis-spoke: to show his support for ... anti-semitism. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is somewhat customary, also for male goyim, to don a yarmulke when visiting a synagogue or attending a Jewish celebration or other ceremony, like Biden here while lecturing at a synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia (and under him Trump while groping the Western Wall). Was Johnson speaking at a synagogue? --Lambiam 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It may have been a Hanukkah reception. --Lambiam 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely, Lambian. Here is Johnson's official statement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This year Hanukkah begins unusually late in the Gregorian calendar, starting at sundown on December 25, when Congress will not be in session. This coincidence can be described by the portmanteau Chrismukkah. So, the Congressional observance of Hanukkah was ahead of schedule this year. Back in 2013, Hanukkah arrived unusually early, during the US holiday of Thanksgiving, resulting in the portmanteau of Thanksgivukkah. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- When you want to check the correlation between Jewish and Christian holidays, you can use the fact that Orthodox Christian months almost always correspond to Jewish months. For Chanucah, the relevant correlation is Emma/Kislev. From the table Special:Permalink/1188536894#The Reichenau Primer (opposite Pangur Bán), in 2024 (with Golden Number 11) Emma began on 3 December, so 24 Emma is 26 December. 92.12.75.131 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This year Hanukkah begins unusually late in the Gregorian calendar, starting at sundown on December 25, when Congress will not be in session. This coincidence can be described by the portmanteau Chrismukkah. So, the Congressional observance of Hanukkah was ahead of schedule this year. Back in 2013, Hanukkah arrived unusually early, during the US holiday of Thanksgiving, resulting in the portmanteau of Thanksgivukkah. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely, Lambian. Here is Johnson's official statement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It may have been a Hanukkah reception. --Lambiam 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, all! Much appreciated! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol
Who was Joseph Mary Thouveau, Bishop of Sebastopol? There is only one reference online ("Letter from Joseph Mary Thouveau. Bishop of Sebastopol, to Philip Lutley Sclater regarding Lady Amherst's Pheasant", 1869), and that has no further details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- After that search engine I used insisted I was looking for a Chauveau I finally located this Joseph Marie Chauveau - So the J M Thouveau item from maxarchiveservices uk must be one of the eccentricities produced by that old fashioned hand-written communication they had in the past. --Askedonty (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of interest that other notice Joseph, Marie, Pierre. The hand-written text scribbled on the portrait stands as 'Eveque de Sebastopolis'. Pierre-Joseph Chauveau probably, now is also mentioned as Pierre-Joseph in Voyages ..even though, Lady Amherst's Pheasant is referred, in the same, through an other missionary intermediary: similar. --Askedonty (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also in Contribution des missionnaires français au progrès des sciences naturelles au XIX et XX. (1932). Full texts are not accessible though it seems there is three times the same content in three different but more or less simultaneously published editions. Askedonty (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a stub at fr:Joseph-Marie Chauveau (there is also a zh article) and a list of bishops at fr:Évêché titulaire de Sébastopolis-en-Arménie. TSventon (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Askedonty: Awesome work, thank you; and really useful. I'll notify my contact at ZSL, so they can fix their transcription error.
- . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Those results were in fact detailed enough that we may even document the circumstances associated with Mgr. Chauveau writing the original letter to the Society. Louis Pierre Carreau recounts his buying of specimens in the country, then his learning about the interest for the species in British diplomatic circles about. The French text is available, with the Gallica servers not under excessive stress, in Bulletin de la Société zoologique d'acclimatation 2°sér t. VII aka "1870" p.502 at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb345084433/date; an other account mentioning the specific species is to be found p.194 . --Askedonty (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
December 23
London Milkman photo
I am writing a rough draft of Delivery After Raid, also known as The London Milkman in my sandbox. I’m still trying to verify basic information, such as the original publication of the photo. It was allegedly first published on October 10, 1940, in Daily Mirror, but it’s behind a paywall in British Newspaper Archive, but from the previews I can see, I don’t know think the photo is there. Does anyone know who originally published it or publicized it, or which British papers carried it in the 1940s? For a photo that’s supposed to be famous, it’s almost impossible to find anything about it before 1998. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Somewhat tellingly, this article about this photo in The Times just writes, "
On the morning of October 10, 1940, a photograph taken by Fred Morley of Fox Photos was published in a London newspaper.
" The lack of identification of the newspaper is not due to reluctance of mentioning a competitor, since further on in the article we read, "... the Daily Mirror became the first daily newspaper to carry photographs ...
". --Lambiam 11:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) - I see it credited (by Getty Images) to "Hulton Archive", which might mean it was in Picture Post. Card Zero (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? Card Zero (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of Picture Post imply that it might have appeared in Picture Post? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? Card Zero (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh! Right, I didn't understand that about Hulton. Card Zero (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a Hulton picture, it was a Fox picture. The Hulton Archive absorbed other archives over the years, before being itself absorbed by Getty. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't join the dots. Doesn't being credited to the photographic archive of Picture Post imply that it might have appeared in Picture Post? How does the agency being Fox Photos negate the possibility? Card Zero (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean the Hulton credit does not imply anything about where it might have appeared. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You mean it might have appeared in multiple papers on October 10, 1940? Card Zero (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was Fox Photos, they were a major agency supplying pictures to all of Fleet Street. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the Daily Mirror of Thursday 10 October 1940. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- a lot of searches suggest it was the Daily Mail. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I've checked the Mirror for the 11th, and the rest of the week. I've checked the News Chronicle, the Express, and the Herald for the 10th. Mail not on BNA. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- As general context, from my professional experience of picture researching back in the day, photo libraries and agencies quite often tried to claim photos and other illustrations in their collections as their own IP even when they were in fact not their IP and even when they were out of copyright. Often the same illustration was actually available from multiple providers, though obviously (in that pre-digital era) one paid a fee to whichever of them you borrowed a copy from for reproduction in a book or periodical. Attributions in published material may not, therefore, accurately reflect the true origin of an image. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just discovered this for myself with Bosman 2008 in The National Gallery in Wartime. In the back of the book it says the London Milkman photo is licensed from Corbis on p. 127. I was leaning towards reading this as an error of some kind before I saw your comment. Interestingly, the Wikpedia article on Corbis illustrates part of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- a lot of searches suggest it was the Daily Mail. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Maybe the 11th, if they picked up on the previous day's London-only publication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are we sure it was published at the time? I haven't been able to find any meaningful suggestion of which paper it appeared in. I've found a few sources (eg History Today) giving a date in September. I've found several suggesting it tied in with "Keep Calm and Carry On", which of course was almost unknown in the War. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the thing. There's no direct evidence it was ever published except for a few reliable sources asserting it was. However, I did find older news sources contemporaneous to the October 1940 (or thereabouts) photograph referring to it in the abstract after that date, as if it had been widely published. Just going from memory here, and this is a loose paraphrase, but one early-1940s paper on Google newspapers says something like "who can forget the image of the milkman making his deliveries in the rubble of the Blitz"? One notable missing part of the puzzle is that someone, somewhere, did an exclusive interview with Fred Morley about the photograph, and that too is impossible to find. It is said elsewhere that he traveled around the world taking photographs and celebrated his silver jubilee with Fox Photos in 1950-something. Other than that, nothing. It's like he disappeared off the face of the earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should also add, the Getty archive has several images of Fred Morley, one of which shows him using an extremely expensive camera for the time. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the thing. There's no direct evidence it was ever published except for a few reliable sources asserting it was. However, I did find older news sources contemporaneous to the October 1940 (or thereabouts) photograph referring to it in the abstract after that date, as if it had been widely published. Just going from memory here, and this is a loose paraphrase, but one early-1940s paper on Google newspapers says something like "who can forget the image of the milkman making his deliveries in the rubble of the Blitz"? One notable missing part of the puzzle is that someone, somewhere, did an exclusive interview with Fred Morley about the photograph, and that too is impossible to find. It is said elsewhere that he traveled around the world taking photographs and celebrated his silver jubilee with Fox Photos in 1950-something. Other than that, nothing. It's like he disappeared off the face of the earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And furthermore, I haven't found any uses of it that look like a scan from a newspaper or magazine. They all seem to use Getty's original. DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've searched BNA for "Fox Photo" and "Fox Photos" in 1940, and while this does turn up several photos from the agency, no milkmen are among them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No relevant BNA result for "Fox Photo" plus "Morley" at any date. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone checked the Gale Picture Post archive for October 1940? I don't have access to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Belgia, the Netherlands, to a 16th c. Englishman?
In Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" (Act 3, Scene 2) Dromio of Syracuse and his master Antipholus of Syracuse discuss Nell the kitchen wench who Dromio says "is spherical, like a globe. I could find out countries in her." After asking about the location of a bunch of countries on Nell (very funny! recommended!), Antipholus ends with: "Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands?" Dromio hints "Belgia, the Netherlands" stood in her privates ("O, sir, I did not look so low.") My question is not about how adequate the comparison is but on whether "Belgia" and "the Netherlands" were the same thing, two synonymous designations for the same thing to Shakespeare (the Netherlands being the whole of the Low Countries and Belgia being just a slightly more literate equivalent of the same)? Or were "the Netherlands" already the Northern Low Countries (i.e. modern Netherlands), i.e. the provinces that had seceded about 15 years prior from the Spanish Low Countries (Union of Utrecht) while "Belgia" was the Southern Low Countries (i.e. modern Belgium and Luxembourg), i.e. the provinces that decided to stay with Spain (Union of Arras)? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Essentially they were regarded as the same - you might look at Leo Belgicus, a visual trope invented in 1583, perhaps a decade before the play was written, including both (and more). In Latin at this period and later Belgica Foederata was the United Provinces, Belgica Regia the Southern Netherlands. The Roman province had included both. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that Gallia Belgica was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as Inferior Germans, that's for sure! Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This general region was originally part of Middle Francia aka Lotharingia, possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, Simon Winder's Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver 'Ferdy' Habsburg, whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Down, from the lego to the playmobil - a country was a lot too much a fuzzy affair without a military detachment on the way to recoinnaitre! --Askedonty (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sure, the individual blocks of this historical lego construction were constantly splitting, mutating and recombining in new configurations, which is why I said 'general region'. Fun related fact: the grandson of the last Habsburg Emperor, who would now be Crown Prince if Austria-Hungary were still a thing, is the racing driver 'Ferdy' Habsburg, whose full surname is Habsburg-Lorraine if you're speaking French or von Habsburg-Lothringen if you're speaking German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually Middle Francia, Lotharingia, different birds: Middle Francia was allocated to Lothair 1 (795-855), Lotharingia was allocated to (and named after) his son Lothair 2 (835-869) (not after his father Lothair 1). Lotharingia was about half the size of Middle Francia, as Middle Francia also included Provence and the northern half of Italy. Upper Lotharingia was essentially made up of Bourgogne and Lorraine (in fact the name "Lorraine" goes back to "Lotharingia" etymologically speaking, through a form "Loherraine"), and was eventually reduced to just Lorraine, whereas Lower Lotharingia was essentially made up of the Low Countries, except for the county of Flanders which was part of the kingdom of France, originally "Western Francia". In time these titles became more and more meaningless. In the 11th c. Godefroid de Bouillon, the leader of the First Crusade and conqueror of Jerusalem was still styled "Duc de Basse Lotharingie" even though by then there were more powerful and important rulers in that same territory (most significantly the duke of Brabant) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This general region was originally part of Middle Francia aka Lotharingia, possession of whose multifarious territories have been fought over by themselves, West Francia (roughly, France) and East Francia (roughly, Germany) for most of the last 1,100 years. The status of any particular bit of territory was potentially subject to repeated and abrupt changes due to wars, treaties, dynastic marriages, expected or unexpected inheritances, and even being sold for ready cash. See, for an entertaining (though exhausting as well as exhaustive) account of this, Simon Winder's Lotharingia: A Personal History of Europe's Lost Country (2019). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems so - "parts of both" would be more accurate. The Dutch didn't want to think of themselves as Inferior Germans, that's for sure! Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I agree with your explanation, but I thought that Gallia Belgica was south of the Rhine, so it only included the southern part of the United Provinces. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico, the Belgians (Belgae) were separated from the Germans (Germani) by the Rhine, so the Belgian tribes then occupied half of what now is the Netherlands. --Lambiam 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- More like a third, but this is complicated by the facts that: (A) the Rhine is poorly defined, as it has many branches in its delta; (B) the branches shifted over time; (C) the relative importance of those branches changed; (D) the land area changed with the changing coastline; and (E) the coastline itself is poorly defined, with all those tidal flats and salt marshes. Anyway, hardly any parts of the modern Netherlands south of the Rhine were part of the Union of Utrecht, although by 1648 they were mostly governed by the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In Shakespeare's time, it was a war zone. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous territory/Indian reservations
Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiyr (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In Suriname not as territories. There are some Amerindian villages. Their distribution can be seen on the map at Indigenous peoples in Suriname § Distribution. --Lambiam 23:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
December 24
Testicles in art
What are some famous or iconic depictions of testicles in visual art (painting, sculpture, etc)? Pre 20th century is more interesting to me but I will accept more modern works as well. 174.74.211.109 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not pre-20th century, but the first thing that comes to mind is New York's Charging Bull (1989) sculpture, which has a famously well-rubbed scrotum. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "iconic"? There's nothing special about testicles in visual arts. All male nudes originally had testicles and penises, unless they fell off (penises tended to do that more, leaving just the testicles) or were removed. There was a pope who couldn't stand them so there's a big room in a basement in the Vatican full of testicles and penises. Fig leaves were late fashion statements, possibly a brainstorm of the aforementioned pope. Here's one example from antiquity among possibly hundreds, from the Moschophoros (genitals gone but they obviously were there once), through the Kritios Boy, through this famous Poseidon that used apparently to throw a trident (über-famous but I couldn't find it on Misplaced Pages, maybe someone else can; how do they know it's not Zeus throwing a lightning bolt? is there an inscription?), and so many more! 178.51.16.158 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article you're looking for is Artemision Bronze. GalacticShoe (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe the Cerne Abbas Giant. Shantavira| 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bake-danuki, somewhat well-known in the West through Pom Poko. Card Zero (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
European dynasties that inherit their name from a female: is there a genealogical technical term to describe that situation?
The Habsburg were descended (in the male line) from a female (empress Maria-Theresa). They were the Habsburg rulers of Austria because of her, not because of their Lorraine male ancestor. So their name goes against general European patrilinear naming customs. Sometimes, starting with Joseph II they are called Habsburg-Lorraine, but that goes against the rule that the name of the father comes first (I've never heard that anyone was called Lorraine-Habsburg) and most people don't even bother with the Lorraine part, if they even know about it.
As far as I can tell this mostly occurs in states where the sovereign happens at some point to be a female. The descendants of that female sovereign (if they rule) sometimes carry her family name (how often? that must depend on how prominent the father is), though not always (cf. queen Victoria's descendants). Another example would be king James, son of Mary queen of Scots and a nobody. But sometimes this happens in families that do not rule over anything (cf. the Chigi-Zondadari in Italy who were descended from a male Zondadari who married a woman from the much more important family of the Chigi and presumably wanted to be associated with them).
What do genealogists, especially those dealing with royal genealogies, call this sort of situation? I'm looking for something that would mean in effect "switch to the mother's name", but the accepted technical equivalent if it exists.
Also do you know of other such situations in European history?
In England where William (Orange) and Mary (Stuart) were joint sovereign did anyone attempt to guess what a line descended from them both would be called (before it became clear such a line would not happen)?
178.51.16.158 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It happens a fair amount in European history, but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It's generally a dynastic or patrilineal affiliation connected with the woman which is substituted, not the name of the woman herself. The descendents of Empress Matilda are known as Plantagenets after her husband's personal nickname. I'm not sure that the Habsburg-Lorraine subdivision is greatly different from the Capetian dynasty (always strictly patrilineal) being divided into the House of Artois, House of Bourbon, House of Anjou, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". 178.51.16.158 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, the waters of this question are somewhat muddied by the fact that Surnames as we know them were not (even confining ourselves to Europe) always a thing; they arose at different times in different places and in different classes. Amongst the ruling classes, people were often 'surnamed' after their territorial possessions (which could have been acquired through marriage or other means) rather than their parental name(s). Also, in some individual family instances (in the UK, at any rate), a man was only allowed to inherit the property and/or title of/via a female heiress whom they married on the condition that they adopted her family name rather than her, his, so that the propertied/titled family name would be continued. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- By the name of the mother I didn't mean her personal name (obviously!) but her line. The example I used of Maria Theresa should have been enough to clarify that. The cases of the Plantagenets (like that of the descendants of Victoria who became known as Saxe-Cobourg, not Hanover) are absolutely regular and do fall precisely outside the scope of my question. The Habsburg-Lorraine are not a new dynasty. The addition of "Lorraine" has no importance, it is purely decorative. It is very different from the switch to collateral branches that happened in France with the Valois, the Bourbon, which happened because of the Salic law, not because of the fact that a woman became the sovereign. Obviously such situations could never occur in places where the Salic law applied. It's happened regularly recently (all the queens of the Netherlands never prevented the dynasty continuing as Oranje or in the case of England as Windsor, with no account whatsoever taken of the father), but I'm not sure how much it happened in the past, where it would have been considered humiliating for the father and his line. In fact I wonder when the concept of that kind of a "prince consort" who is used to breed children but does not get to pass his name to them was first introduced. Note neither Albert nor Geoffrey were humiliated in this way and I suspect the addition of "Lorraine" was just to humor Francis (who also did get to be Holy Roman Emperor) without switching entirely to a "Lorraine" line and forgetting altogether about the "Habsburg" which in fact was the regular custom, and which may seem preposterous to us now given the imbalance of power, but was never considered so in the case of Albert even though he was from an entirely inconsequential family from an entirely inconsequential German statelet. I know William of Orange said he would refuse such a position and demanded that he and Mary be joint sovereign hence "William and Mary". 178.51.16.158 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the old style of dynastic reckoning, Elizabeth II would have been transitional from Saxe-Coburg to Glucksberg, and even under the current UK rules, descendants of Prince Philip (and only those descendants) who need surnames use Mountbatten-Windsor. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
December 25
Death Row commutations by Biden
Biden commuted nearly all of the Federal Death Row sentences a few days ago. Now, what’s the deal with the Military Death Row inmates? Are they considered "federal" and under the purview of Biden? Or, if not, what’s the distinction? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- This page and the various tabs you can click from there include a lot of information. There hasn't been a military execution since 1961 and there are only four persons on the military death row at this point. The President does have the power to commute a death sentence issued under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not clear why President Biden did not address those four cases when he commuted the sentences of most federal death row inmates a few days ago, although two of the four cases (see here) are linked to terrorism, so would likely not have been commuted anyway. Xuxl (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Coca Romano's portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania
I am trying to work out when Coca Romano's coronation portraits of Ferdinand and Marie of Romania were actually completed and unveiled. This is with an eye to possibly uploading a photo of them to this wiki: they are certainly still in copyright in Romania (Romano lived until 1983), but probably not in the U.S. because of publication date.
The coronation took place in 1922 at Alba Iulia. The portraits show Ferdinand and Marie in their full regalia that they wore at the coronation. They appear to have been based on photographs taken at the coronation, so they must have been completed after the event, not before.
A few pieces of information I have: there is no date on the canvasses. The pieces are in the collection of the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu (inventory numbers 2503 for the picture of Marie and 2504 for Ferdinand) , p. 36-37], and were on display this year at Art Safari in Bucharest, which is where I photographed them. If they were published (always a tricky concept for a painting, but I'm sure they were rapidly and widely reproduced) no later than 1928, or in a few days 1929, we can upload my photo in this wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
(I've uploaded the image to Flickr, if anyone wants a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54225746973/). - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: