Revision as of 17:43, 5 May 2024

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 21

Early human migration

a simple reference for human migration 180.150.255.58 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You could start with Early human migrations. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There is also simple:Early human migrations.  --Lambiam 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatsit

Somewhat common in the 13th century, Christian churches had an attached bin for human bones of village ancestors. I think it was called "char-something". Anybody know what it is (not an ossuary)? -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Charnel house --Viennese Waltz 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's it -- thanks! --136.54.106.120 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

April 23

Saint George's body rediscovered!

The following passage comes from Robert Graves' Lars Porsena, or the Future of Swearing and Improper Language (1927) pp. 6–7:

It has been stated with detail and persistence that in the late summer of 1918 an Australian mounted unit sensationally rediscovered the actual bones of St George – not George of Cappadocia but the other one who slew the Dragon: they were brought to light by the explosion of a shell in the vault of a ruined church. The officer in command sent a cable to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster inviting them to house the holy relics. After some delay, the Dean and Chapter formally regretted the serious over-crowding of their columns; for, of course, though they could not very well mention it, St George was a bloody German. So the saint was lost again by the disgusted Australians, this time beyond rescue. Or so one version of the story has it. The other version, more attractive if less authenticated, suggests that the Dean relented later and permitted the relics to be smuggled into the Abbey under the thin disguise of The Unknown Warrior, thereby avoiding offence to anti-Popish feeling.

Can anyone find any evidence that this bizarre story really was going the rounds in 1918, a symptom perhaps of war hysteria like the Angels of Mons, or did Graves make the whole thing up? He had a very lively sense of humour in his earlier days, as the whole of Lars Porsena shows. Also, why was St George a bloody German? --Antiquary (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The version Graves tells in Occupation Writer has the grave being discovered in Palestine, and the reason for his non-translation being that it would require ceremonies too Popish for the century, and tacit admission of the dragon myth. He doesn't mention the Unknown Warrior. See here. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware, but Australians have long a reputation for, um, making up stories; pulling your leg; telling porkies. I suspect those bloody Australians were just telling a Furphy. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that. They were probably often wrongly understood by unattentive listeners, who would have been the ones writing down the anecdote. --Askedonty (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I've found it, Palestine Exploration Quarterly October 1917, 'Notes and News', page 150 has the following:

The Daily Telegraph of the 23rd August contained a lengthy description by Mr. W. T. Massey of the discovery by the British forces of a richly-paved Christian church. The discovery was made by the Australians at Shellal, between Beersheba and Khan Yunus, and therefore on the main road from Jerusalem to Egypt. The keenest interest was aroused among the men themselves, and the utmost care was taken to safeguard it. The work was done under the direction of the Rev. W. Maitland Woods, senior chaplain (Church of England) of the Anzac and Mounted Division, and the party were often subject to the unwelcome attentions of the enemy's guns and suspicious aeroplanes. A fragmentary inscription relates that "this temple with spacious--(? foundations) was built by our most holy--(? bishop) and most pious George--in the year 622 according to--(? the era of) Gaza." Under the inscription were found the bones of the saint; his identity is uncertain, and the original suggestion that the founder was St. George himself does not bear investigation. The whole mosaic consisted of some 8,000 pieces of mosaic, of which not one stone was lost; and one of the features of Mr. Massey's account is the description of the careful and ingenious methods by which, in the midst of all the military preparations, this piece of archaeological labour was effectively completed. Some further account of the discovery may be anticipated later. It may be added that a letter in the following issue of The Daily Telegraph recalled the fact that George is among the commonest and most beloved of names in Eastern Christendom, thus adding to the other objections against the identity of the buried saint; but "when our troops have advanced another forty miles northwards towards Lydda they may come, perhaps, within the very patrimony of the soldier patron of England and of many other countries."

Which I rather think would be the genesis of Graves's yarn. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

And more info here, here, and here. Search for Shellal + St George, or Shellal Mosaic and you'll find lots more. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that has to be it, you've solved a mystery I've vaguely wondered about for decades. It's a shame that the body turns out not to have been St George's, but hardly unexpected. I'm still wondering what Graves' German reference means though. --Antiquary (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

George is one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, popular amongst German RCs, and is sometimes claimed as Germany's patron saint. There's a gert statue of him in Berlin. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

And Robert von Ranke Graves would have known that. Thanks, and happy St George's Day! --Antiquary (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It might have been more interesting if they had found the bones of the dragon alongside. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What evidence can establish that a find is of the remains of the one and only true George of Lydda? Some dragon bones buried alongside the holy man?  --Lambiam 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 24

Ottoman Armenian flag

The article on Ottoman flags shows distinct civil ensigns for Latins, Jews, Muslims and Greeks (with black, yellow, green and blue stripes, respectively) used through the 18th century; is there any record of one for Armenians or other Oriental Orthodox? 71.126.57.87 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Not on the Flag of Armenia article. If there was no significant Armenian nautical commerce, then the Ottomans would not have perceived a need for such a flag. AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that all our coverage of these flags is entirely unsourced at the moment (on the image files themselves as well as on all the pages where they are used), so we can't really safely assume there even was such a thing as these ensigns in the first place. A pointer can be found on the fotw.info website to some 19th-century flag compendium listing some of them (though not the Jewish one), and I've seen a few contemporary 18th-century illustrations that seem to confirm the use of the Greek (red-and-blue) one at least. No information on how far back the existence of these flags can be traced - the claim that they are valid for the entire time of the Ottoman Empire since 1452 seems quite dubious. I haven't seen anything about other Ottoman nationalities such as the Armenians either. Fut.Perf. su 10:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Some info on these two FOTW pages (which don't 100% agree with each other): Greece under the Ottomans, Ottoman empire... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If Tesla shareholders re-approve Elon Musk's compensation package will he pay the original California taxes or now the 0% Texas tax?

Title Tikaboo (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We din’t offer legal opinions. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think he'll pay any taxes? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Info on statistical research papers / essays about blocking of Misplaced Pages users?

Looking for information on statistical research papers / essays about blocking of Misplaced Pages users in general, category wise and in polarized / contentious topic areas.

Just contemplating to include such information, while mentoring, to convince users to encourage them in learning constructive editing practices and deter them from attraction of destructive editing practices. Bookku (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You could look through the archives of the Misplaced Pages Signpost's "Recent Research" summaries. There doesn't seem to be an overall listing of all "Recent Research" articles, that I can find... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

COMPETES Act and negative news about China

A questions to everybody who is educated about the American law:
Is there any fact which preclude that a bill like the COMPETES Act allowed the gouverment to spend 500 million dollars on media. Would it be allowed by the US constitution that the gouverment spends money on media which makes the a certain news?
I think, maybe it would be unconstitutional or something.
I just look for information how debunk the claim and starts to ask myself. 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:410D:99D9:F99:A812 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There's very little about it on Misplaced Pages (and of course it has nothing to do with China), but during much of the 19th century, U.S. administrations subsidized newspapers they favored (i.e. with a congenial political tendency in their coverage) by awarding them government printing contracts. At various times Francis Preston Blair and John Weiss Forney ran newspapers with lucrative federal printing contracts. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The United States directly operates a news network from the federal budget, the Voice of America. —Amble (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

From that article: "As of 2022, VOA had a weekly worldwide audience of approximately 326 million (up from 237 million in 2016) and employed 961 staff with an annual budget of $267.5 million", so that accounts for about half the $500m on its own.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how much is spent by the CIA and other 'black operations' for similar purposes, but it won't be negligible.

The fact that these expenditures are known or reasonably presumed suggests (though does not prove) that there can't be a Constitutional reason preventing them, or someone would have called "foul" before now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

April 25

Outfit associated with voters of British parties

Hello,

what kind of outfit is typical with voters of specific British poltical parties respectively?

Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Derby hats and canes? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean the general unconspicuous outfit. Sarcelles (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really one, unless you want to get into correlated stereotypes (someone dressed for a shooting party is more likely to vote tory; someone in their nurse's/train driver's uniform is less likely to), or a suit with a tie in the party colour, which politicians will often wear. We don't go in for MUKGA caps. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Rosettes are worn mainly by politicians seeking to be elected and their campaign staff and volunteers, but I don't know any reason why an enthusiastic supporter of a political party couldn't wear one. Up through the 1930s, there were clothing items that mostly proclaimed a specific class identity (flat cap for workers, top hat for upper and upper-middle classes), but I'm a little skeptical that there's any simple and reliable correlation between clothes and politics today... AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Public Order Act 1936 prohibits political uniforms. DuncanHill (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The question was not about uniforms. --Viennese Waltz 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It was about outfits associated with political parties. A political uniform is an outfit associated with a political party. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

And… if enough of those in a particular political party all wear the same outfit, then that outfit becomes a party uniform (even if that “uniform” consists of nothing more than wearing khakis and a red polo shirt). Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I always liked the idea of "Black Shorts" in a PG Wodehouse novel... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

shooting party is more likely to vote tory; someone in their nurse's/train driver's uniform is less likely to), or a suit with a tie in the party colour, which politicians will often wear. We don't go in for MUKGA caps. This is the minority, who does so. I wanted to know about the majority of voters. Sarcelles (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The majority of voters don’t vote. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"The majority of voters don’t vote", Not true for national elections in the UK, but correct for local elections. See here. Xuxl (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If they don't vote, are they voters? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking about eligible voters. (As distinct from the illegible kind.) -- Jack of Oz 21:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "typical outfit" relating to a particular political party in the United Kingdom. Voting along the lines of social class has not bee clearly defined since the 1980s (see Essex man, Islington set and Red wall for example). British people tend to dress rather similarly to everyone else in Western Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, of course there isn't! I don't know where the questioner comes from, but he may be asking if at election time we all go round in gaudy clothes featuring screenprints of the blown-up heads of party leaders, as in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. We don't. I suppose a study might be done of lapel badges, and tie or dress colours worn by the policians themselves, but this rarely extends to the voters; at the moment the Ukrainian flag seems the most popular for badges. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Screenprints of the blown-up heads of party leaders are typical examples of such outfits, but not the general pattern. Sarcelles (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course such styles seem to be spreading in the US, but not here. I suspect we just aren't sufficiently enthusiastic about our political leaders. Despite having had big local elections just on Thursday, I was unable to find on google a t shirt with Ed Davey, leader of the UK's third (just about) biggest party. But you can get a mug. It's a different story with Keir Starmer, soon to be incoming PM, though many of these are unfriendly to him. The Sparkly ones with glitter have sold out apparently. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have found an example: boho chic. I want to indulge in fashion asthetic here. Sarcelles (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

April 26

Lockheed D-21 Operational History

The article for the Lockheed D-21 supersonic drone, along with most other sources I have read, states that only four operational missions were flown by this aircraft over China as part of a program called Senior Bowl, and none of the four were successful. Two crashed, one was lost when its parachute failed, and the fourth was destroyed when the Navy ship tasked with recovering the film capsule accidentally ran over it.

However, I have recently come across a book which claims that two of the operational D-21 missions were successfully recovered. The book contains an excerpt of an interview with a Lt. Col Alfred Crane, who worked with classified spy satellites and drones during the Cold War, in which Crane described processing two D-21 film capsules that had been recovered after missions over China.

I have been able to independently affirm through other sources that the book's author, Lloyd Spanberger, was involved with developing film from spy planes and satellites at Westover Air Reserve Base during the Cold War, so his accounts are likely genuine. If this information is true, it would require a major re-write of the D-21's Misplaced Pages article, but without anything more to go on I do not want to make any changes yet. So what should I-- and Misplaced Pages as a whole-- do? 135.135.227.26 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If the book were regarded as a Reliable source, you could at least include text to the effect that "According to the book . . . "

However, the ISBN (as indicated here) shows that it is published through XLIBRIS, a self-publishing platform, and therefore by the author with no editorial control. Even if other sources seem to confirm that Lloyd R. Spanberger was indeed involved in affairs as you state, and that the other (admittedly copious) details of the book's co-contributors check out, a self-published work is going to be hard to affirm as 'Reliable'.

Spanberger's accounts may be genuine, but an individual's value judgement is not good enough for Misplaced Pages. To what extent have you considered that intelligence operations notoriously surround themselves with false information to cover up secrets (such as real sources of information being still-undiscovered foreign agents), and that the book, or even Spanberger's or Crane's existence, may be a manufactured part of such an effort? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose fabricating such information would serve, though. The book was published in 2014, and all official US government records pertaining to the D-21's operational history were declassified in 1994. While I stress that this is only my personal assessment, I don't see what the author would have to gain from falsifying such information 20 years after it was already made public and anyone could look it up and a coverup would no longer be necessary.

I am aware of Misplaced Pages's policy regarding reliable sources, and that this book currently does not meet the standards of one. However, all of the other information contained in the book is factual, covering such things as the failed tests of the digital photography system on the SAMOS satellite and the development of an infrared camera for the SR-71. For this one piece of information to be the exception would be unusual to say the least. While I will refrain from adding it to the article for the time being, I feel like there is no reason not to take this information at face value. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, Spanberger – who I'm sure does exist! My caveat was a hypothetical regarding the inherent unreliability of information defense and espionage spheres – might be considered a subject expert; on the other, the self-published nature of the book throws up caution signals – why did a mainstream publisher not take it up?

On reflection, I suggest you do use and cite it, but ensure you hedge the material with "according to Spanberger", "Crane states" and the like, and make the self-published nature of the source explicit. At worst, some other editor will revert and you can discuss it further, per WP:BRD. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I reached out to the Seattle Museum of Flight, which has a D-21 on display, and asked them for their opinion on the material. They considered it to be potentially reliable. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and made the edits to the article. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What is Pierre Poilievre's stance on VIA HFR?

Did Poilievre state whether or not he would continue to support VIA HFR? Félix An (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the Conservative Party of Canada's official policy platform (see here): "We support rail infrastructure across Canada, including innovative high-speed passenger rail where warranted. This would ease conflicts between passenger and freight trains, reduce highway congestion and GHG emissions, and promote national unity and inter-provincial trade." and "The Conservative Party supports the capacity expansion of existing rail-based transportation infrastructure across Canada in order to secure tidewater port access and increase international market access for Canadian manufacturing, processing, agricultural, and natural resource exports." These can be found in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the linked document. Xuxl (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course, a non-specific statement like that does not necessarily mean they would support this particular project. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Columbus

Our articles on Columbus say little is known about his early life and that his original voyaging journals have been lost. This seems odd to me, considering his oversized role in history. What are the current explanations for these two missing components of his life? Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No one bothered to write it down at the time? Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really add up. We have extensive historical records going back thousands of years. But suddenly, the biography and journals of one of the most influential explorers in European history goes missing. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But he was only widely understood to have been influential some time after the fact. At the time, he was just another adventurer, with a murky past, operating with a degree of secrecy to protect both his own and his patrons' benefit, in an era where everybody from personal to State level was trying to steal their rivals' trade secrets.

Historical records may be extensive, but they are very, very far from being comprehensive. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think the secrecy component explains the missing journals and biographical backstory. Can you recommend any good sources that go deeper into this? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it is discussed at origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost nothing is known of Verrazzano's early life, who discovered New York Harbor April 27th, 1524 (April 17th as Gregorian calendar not invented yet). It's not even known if he really was eaten by tropical cannibals or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

But suddenly, the biography and journals of one of the most influential explorers in European history goes missing. What do you mean by "suddenly"? I don't think this is a case of important historical documents "suddenly" "going missing". More likely they weren't considered important enough at the time to preserve. Young Columbus wasn't an important person at all, and the importance of older Columbus (and his voyages) wasn't understood until later. Iapetus (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Giving legal advice

Legal advice says the following:

In the common law systems it is usually received from a solicitor, barrister or lawyer; in civil law systems it is given by advocates, lawyers or other professionals (such as tax experts, professional advisors, etc.).

Does this mean that in your typical common-law jurisdiction, advice from a tax expert (or other non-lawyer expert in a field touching on the law) is not considered legal advice, while comparable advice from a comparable expert in a civil-law jurisdiction is considered legal advice? Is it a matter of definition of "legal advice"? I would expect professional advice from such experts to be comparable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, regardless of a jurisdiction's legal system. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In general, only qualified lawyers (who may locally be known by another term), admitted to practice in a given jurisdiction, can represent a client in a court case in that jurisdiction, whether the system is common law or civil law. Based on the cited references, giving legal advice (as defined in our article) while not a legal professional (a "nonlawyer") is considered "unauthorized practice of law" in many or perhaps all US jurisdictions. I don't know to what extent this is the case in other jurisdictions. Advice on how to file one's tax return is not by itself legal advice.  --Lambiam 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think the terminology used is a bit clunky. Here in the UK there are "solicitors" and "barristers" which are roles you attain after a specified amount of study and experience: whereas "lawyer" is a generic term for anyone practicing law. So it's wrong to say "solicitors, barristers or lawyers" because solicitors and barristers are lawyers. And there is no mention of notaries public, nor of legal executives. Conversely, the USA is also a common law jurisdiction* - probably the world's biggest - and there they do not (so far as I know) have solicitors, but the favoured term is "attorneys", a word which doesn't appear in the quote at all. AndyJones (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

*Correcting my comment, the USA is - of course - a collection of jurisdictions most of which are classified as common law. AndyJones (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

April 27

Types of Religions

I am looking for a list of types of religion. Along the lines of: monotheism, polytheism, animism, natrualism, etc. I'm trying to find a good starting point for looking into these lesser known types of religion. However, all I can find are lists of specific religions or disconnected pages of types with no single page that lists all of them. I remember there used to be such a page, years ago, when I previously looked this information up, but for the life of me, I cannot find it. Phoenix-Inanis (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Check the category called Philosophy of religion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The category Religious faiths, traditions, and movements and its subcategories may also be helpful.  --Lambiam 17:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into these! Sorry for the late reply, I thought I would've gotten an email notification. Phoenix-Inanis (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not send email notifications. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You can subscribe to a page section, and/or add the page to your watchlist, and then set your Preferences to get an email notification. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. The last time I checked, that functionality wasn't available. Mind you, that was over 10 years ago. --Viennese Waltz 06:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

April 29

Understanding Foreign funding of US universities

Recently came across conflicting mentions about Foreign funding of US universities in some media reports. Didn't find enough info this WP article section. Wish to understand foreign funding issues in brief. Bookku (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That's about funding by U.S. government entities. What you want is Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I came across some news reports about students protesting against University funding by Israel too. Idk verifiability. But seems various overseas countries interested in influencing US academics. Bookku (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Israel-relevant articles will have titles such as "Academic boycott of Israel" (I'm really not interested in looking them up), and will not be about funding in the same sense as Qatar. A movement headed by people such as Mona Baker, who received the rare distinction (for a pure academic) of being condemned by the UK Prime Minister and Parliament, yet who some people on Misplaced Pages still claim is a reliable source... AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

White House Correspondents' dinner by both POTUS and VP

Hi. I was watching the White House Correspondents' dinner and noticed that both the POTUS and VP were there.

I've only watched a few of these dinners, and to my (very poor) recollection, none of them both the POTUS and VP attend. It was explained to me that this is due to security concerns.

1. Were there another White House Correspondents' dinner in the past 30 years where both the POTUS and VP attended?

2. Were there some sort of past security policy (albeit a flexible one) where both the POTUS and VP attending was discouraged?

3. Does the entertainer get advanced notice of the VP's attendance? In a few of the previous dinners, some of the jokes were based on the VP not present. For example: "Is still Vice President? Cuz' if not, I'm down to like: 'Good night and God bless America.'" Some of these joke wouldn't work if the VP was there. OptoFidelty (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

See article Designated survivor... AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1) This article (not sure how reliable) says: "it'll be the first time in seven years that a president, vice president and both spouses are each present at the star-studded event". That can't have been 2017 because Donald Trump chose not to attend, but this article has a picture of VP Joe Biden arriving at the 2016 dinner, when President Obama was also present and spoke. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• 3) Don't know, but a good comedian can improvise. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Nixon leaving White House

This might be a bit of a stupid question, but I have to ask it anyway. Here is the famous photograph of Richard Nixon leaving the White House after the Watergate scandal.

Which one is Richard Nixon? JIP | Talk 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

On the right with hand stretched out. Look for the famous nose. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

User:JIP, are you familiar with the annotation feature on Commons? I've now annotated both presidents and their wives. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Yes, I am familiar with the annotation feature. Thanks for the annotations. JIP | Talk 20:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the anotations. However, Johnbod has it right, and facing him is Gerald Ford. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Look the image up directly in Commons. The annotations don't show on Misplaced Pages. JIP | Talk 19:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing them on Commons either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I am. When my mouse pointer is on the picture, yellow boxes appear around some of the heads. Move the mouse pointer into a yellow box and the name of the owner of the head appears. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha! So that's the trick. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess those beyond them are the Nixon daughters and their husbands (Cox, Eisenhower)? —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• The fact that there are people who don’t instantly recognize Nixon makes me realize… God, I’m getting old! Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It beats the alternative! DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fifty years, you know … (I was a bit startled when I first found myself saying “I haven't … in fifty years”!) —Tamfang (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

But why is he trying to shake hands with Lenin? --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There must be a joke in there somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's that Lenin and Ford had similar hairlines. —Tamfang (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

April 30

Volunteer (naval rank)

The Master's mate article says:

In 1824 two further grades were also introduced, consisting of master's assistants and second-class volunteers. These corresponded to midshipmen and first-class volunteers respectively in the executive line. These corresponded to midshipmen and first-class volunteers respectively in the executive line.

I tried to find *any* mention on-wiki regarding the "First Class Volunteer" and "Second Class Volunteer" ranks. The nearest I could come up with was Volunteer-per-order. But that article suggests that the rank was phased out in 1732, which is *long* before 1824.

Does anyone know more about the First-Class and Second-Class Volunteer ranks, or have a decent (ideally less than book-length) source with more information? I'd also be grateful for information about the "Master's Assistant" rank mentioned in the Master's Mate article, fwiw. -- Avocado (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If anyone finds information that can be added to Master's mate, it should also be added to Passed midshipman, which mentions the first- and second-class volunteers. Nyttend (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There were the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Those articles say those orgs were instituted in 1853 and 1859, though. What would a first-class/second-class volunteer be between 1824 and 1853? -- Avocado (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance from the sages at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history. Alansplodge (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, good call -- thank you! -- Avocado (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I came across these volunteer ranks myself just a few days ago. I am still trying to understand them. However, if you search in en:s:A Naval Biographical Dictionary for "Fst.-Cl. Vol" and "Sec-Cl. Vol" you will find entries for many officers that started at these ranks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I found some sources on First Class Volunteers! Most of them even look reliable:

• https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help/trafalgarancestors/glossary.htm: "This was the rating that replaced boy first class and was given to 'young gentlemen' training to become officers."

My reaction: "boy first class" looks like it'll be a difficult term to research online!

• https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095548366: glossary entry for "captain's servant"

The name that used to be given to boys entering the Royal Navy at about the age of 12, before they became midshipmen. The custom of allowing post-captains to take such ‘servants’ into their ships derived from the older apprenticeship system. Such servants or followers did no menial work since they were aspiring officers. They were accommodated in the gunroom under the general supervision of the gunner before graduating to the midshipmen's mess in the cockpit, and thence on promotion to the lieutenants' wardroom. The name was changed in 1796 to volunteer, first class, boys of the second and third classes not aspiring to the rank of commissioned officers. Unlike King's Letter boys, who were nominated by the Admiralty, a captain's servant was a personal follower of a post-captain, taken on board to oblige relatives or friends.

• https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3355&context=gradschool_theses: an entire master's thesis on the topic that I haven't yet dug into besides a keyword search and skimming a couple paras, but will probably be an excellent source and might help turn up further sources
• https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/266/806/6375003?login=false on a tangentially related topic turns up this footnote:

On young gentlemen, see S. A. Cavell, Midshipmen and Quarterdeck Boys in the British Navy, 1771–1831 (Woodbridge, 2012); S. Cavell, ‘A social history of midshipmen and quarterdeck boys in the Royal Navy, 1761–1831’ (2 vols., unpublished University of Exeter Ph.D. thesis, 2010); and Wilson, Social History, ch. 1.

"Wilson, Social History" appears to refer to: E. Wilson, A Social History of British Naval Officers, 1775–1815 (Woodbridge, 2017)

I'll plan to read that thesis and start mining these for a little more info for our articles. And would of course appreciate any collaboration if others are also interested.

Do bear in mind that a masters thesis does not usually count as a reliable source, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that warning! That does put a damper on things, I guess.

Does it make a difference if what I'm planning to add based on the thesis a) isn't particularly controversial, and b) is provided in the thesis as general background information (supported by other sources that I don't have direct access to) rather than something the thesis itself is attempting to prove? -- Avocado (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I may also be back with more questions later about Second Class Volunteers, and ... Third Class, which that Oxford source suggests also existed.

Maybe someone else can access the sources that aren't online?

Also ... opinions on where this info should live? Maybe expand Young gentlemen and add some cross-links with the other articles already mentioned? -- Avocado (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bazar de la Charité fire again

I'd never heard of the Bazar de la Charité fire before seeing the thread above. In the article's list of victims, we see:

Marie du Quesne (1857–1897), Viscountess Bonneval, whose husband had been a member of the Chamber of Deputies of the Third French Republic from 1885 to 1889

What was her husband's name, and do we have an article about him? (Obviously he passes WP:POLITICIAN.) There's nothing at Bonneval, Bonneval (surname), Quesne, or Duquesne, and I couldn't find anything with a Google search. Nyttend (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Likely fr:Anatole-Fernand de Bonneval, see also the official data sheet. His main achievement in the chamber was to never step on the podium... --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

heck, I can do that. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

And while we're at it, here's the marriage licence (the page on the right, signatures overleaf). --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This looks to be the main source for the French article: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k83707p/f414.item Chuntuk (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Marie was the daughter of Rear-Admiral Joseph Marie Lazare Duquesne (1804-1854) and a descendant of the more famous Admiral Abraham Duquesne (1610-1688). She had two children, a son Bernard and a daughter Aliette, the latter dying in the fire with her mother.

From Bulletin de la Société héraldique etʹgenéalogique de France: Volume 10 (1897), p. 287.

This genealogy page about Marie gives her date of birth as 30 May 1852, rather than 1857 quoted in our article, which would be three years after her father's death and rather a long pregnancy. It also gives her father's middle name as Balthazar instead of Marie Lazare - perhaps due to inscrutable French handwriting.

Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Ce grand bébé qu'on appelle le Français" , making him hard to work properly the pen and ink --Askedonty (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

May 1

"The Tay Bridge Disaster" really that bad of a poem?

People say "The Tay Bridge Disaster" by William McGonagall is a bad poem, but is there any explanation as to why? Our article just says in a conclusary fashion that it has been "lampooned by critics as one of the worst poems in the English language." The source that supports the claim just calls McGonagall a writer of "juvenile, arrhythmic poems", but there's nothing on the poem itself, and the source isn't really a poetry analysis source anyways. I was able to find one source that says "parallelism must be seen to have arisen accidentally. Rhyme that appears forced runs the risk of being subject to negative evaluation." Any help? I don't think we have an article on parallelism. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well for starters, most of it doesn't scan; where is the metre? Shantavira| 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

For continuation, even this defence of McGonagall admits that bathetic rhymes are characteristic of his style. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see the Poetry Foundation's definition of doggerel, which describes it as "traditionally characterized by clichés, clumsiness, and irregular meter", and illustrates this with an excerpt from the Tay Bridge Disaster. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This biographical introduction to McGonagall's works says:

He shared many of the faults of Mr Pooter, being pompous, self-important, humourless and the butt of jokes he didn't understand...

From the day divine inspiration to write poetry descended upon McGonagall, he was addicted to rhyme and the same rhyme pairs would often appear in his writing - if a poem involved the queen, she'd be somewhere "green" or "wondrous to be seen”. Although rhyming was a compulsion with McGonagall, scansion was completely alien to him. The long rambling lines, ending with that vital rhyme, are the most recognisable feature of his work and sometimes reach prodigious proportions...

The third element in McGonagall's poetic technique - or lack of it - is his extraordinary ability to puncture whatever pathos he may have been able to create by the addition of some extraneous fact or an inappropriate phrase...

Hunt, Chris (2007). "Introduction". William McGonagall: Collected Poems. Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited. ISBN 978-1841584775.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Alan's quote is addressing the same point as the one about "parallelism", in the source you found. Parallelism being apparently used as a general term for rhyme, alliteration, consonance, assonance etc. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In McGonagall's defence:

There is little meaningful distinction between McGonagall's style and content and that of a hawker of street verse in 1830s or 1860s Scotland... other than McGonagall's far greater reputation and longevity.

Blair, Kirstie (2019). Working Verse in Victorian Scotland: Poetry, Press, Community. Oxford University Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0198843795.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"being...the butt of jokes he didn't understand." Ah yes, the "fault" of every bullied child. Anyway, writing any poetry is hard, even "bad" poetry is better than most of us will ever achieve, and memorable poetry is beyond even most professional poets. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he's included in a global encyclopedia would undoubtedly please him no end. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Having read the poem, I'd say the obvious reasons would be that it's really inconsistent in structure: inconsistent line length, inconsistent verse length, and inconsistent rhyming pattern. It also has a lot of repetition (for example "on the last Sabbath day of 1879" is used four times), but even that repetition isn't consistent enough to be part of the structure of the poem. Iapetus (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the question is inherently subjective, I'm treating as such to whatever extent my heart desires: it's very bad. It's not bad for its use of stock poetic conventions without demonstrating any understanding of why they're used, while simultaneously just, failing, to actually use them successfully. It's bad because it's boring and says nothing. Given it's longer than a few stanzas, I would expect a poem either to "tell a story" in the most abstract sense through elements like mood, perhaps by varying or elaborating upon said elements. Here, no connections are made that run deeper than the lines on which the words themselves appear. It just sounds like someone boring is talking to me about the boat, and there's no attempt to explore anything at any depth or breadth. Boat. Boat!

Boat. Remsense诉 23:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've always particularly enjoyed that branch of literary criticism which involves displaying the critic's complete failure to read the criticised work. There ain't a boat in it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If I said I meant to type "bridge" four times in a row but failed all four times because I was distracted, that sounds like an obvious lie and you wouldn't believe me. So, I'll just take the L on this one. Remsense诉 23:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what "take the L" means. In your defence, boats and bridges do perform the same function, so your confusion could be excused. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Take the loss". The silver lining here is that my claimed QWERTial aphasia was probably as interesting as "The Tay Boat Disaster". Remsense诉 00:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I did that writing in my Dad's Filofax the other day. I said "I'll visit on Friday", and in the Friday section I wrote "Friday", instead of "Duncan". DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just read the poem for the first time. Is he trying to rhyme Edinburgh with sorrow? And if so, how is he expecting each to be pronounced? Iapetus (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to mostly work, assuming both end with like I'd expect. Remsense诉 10:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Having past connections with Dundee, I'm very familiar with McGonagall (who remains a local celebrity there) and his 3-volume Poetic Gems collection is almost within arms' reach as I type.

One of McGonagall's positive features is that he documented (in appallingly bad verse) many events that were at the time locally newsworthy but which otherwise have faded from memory. Generally, he is faithful to facts as reported in the local press at the time, and the incongruity of poetising often mundane events is one source of the amusement his works afford.

In latter years it has been suggested that his apparent poetic ineptitude may have been deliberate, but more likely he genuinely lacked any literary discernment, something of a handicap in a Shakespearian actor and a self-proclaimed 'poet and tragedian.' {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

See, that's neat. To be clear, even bad boring art is worth an awful lot sometimes. :) Remsense诉 06:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Declaration of interest here - I am the Chris Hunt who's introduction to McGonagall's collected works is quoted above! The wiki answer to the question is that it's a bad poem because reliable sources say it is. Having read this poem in public on several occasions, I can tell you it's a great poem to perform live - but only if you do it for laughs, which I'm sure was not the intention of the original author. Chuntuk (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Chuntuk, I have used your learned text as a reference for a new section; The Tay Bridge Disaster#Criticism. I hope this satisfies Therapyisgood's original inquiry. Thanks all and feel free to edit if my modest efforts are lacking in any respect. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why ♭ seems be more popular than ♯ ?

e.g. in the circle of fifths:

• D
• A & G
• E & C
• B & F
• F♯ & B♭
• C♯ & E♭
• G♯/A♭ (they are the same note, but why called A♭ more often than G♯?)

also, in the diatonic scales:

• C major/a minor (0)
• G major/e minor (1♯) & F major/d minor (1♭)
• D major/b minor (2♯) & B♭ major/g minor (2♭)
• A major/f♯ minor (3♯) & E♭ major/c minor (3♭)
• E major/c♯ minor (4♯) & A♭ major/f minor (4♭)
• B major/g♯ minor (5♯) & D♭ major/b♭ minor (5♭)
• F♯ major/d♯ minor/G♭ major/e♭ minor (6♯/6♭) (they are the same diatonic scale, but why G♭ major/e♭ minor (6♭) is used more often than F♯ major/d♯ minor (6♯)?

125.230.0.219 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

G♯ and A♭ are the same key on most current keyboards, but they are not the same note in all tuning systems. In Pythagorean tuning, they are separated by a Pythagorean comma.  --Lambiam 06:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume that the OP is mostly interested in Western common practice—12TET, normative music theory etc.

Let's look at the notes of F♯ major alongside those of G♭ major:

F♯, G♯, A♯, B, C♯, D♯, E♯

G♭, A♭, B♭, C♭, D♭, E♭, F

They're both equally pesky if E♯ or C♭ make you uncomfortable, of course. No double-sharps or double-flats which disqualify key signatures like G-flat minor, which requires B𝄫, E𝄫, as well as F♭. So that's not why.

I would surmise part of the reason why is that G♭ major is simply closer to other keys with which it may relate in a given piece, suite, etc. It's much more common to play around in the darkness of A♭ and D♭ major than worry about B major being annoying for everyone but the guitarist. B♭ minor is also a rather common key, because many instruments are tuned to B♭. Remsense诉 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This means in the circle of fifths, the 7 “normal” white keys (A, B, C, D, E, F, G), and the black keys, the two black keys which are “next to” the white keys in the circle of fifths, we use F# and Bb instead of Gb and A#, since F# and Bb are “next to” the white keys in the circle of fifths, i.e, they have distance of 1 to the “normal” white keys (B and F, respectively), but Gb and A# have distance of 5 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, similarly, C# and Eb both have distance of 2 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, but Db and D# have distance of 4 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, thus we use C# and Eb instead of Db and D#, but for the black key G#/Ab, this key is the “farest” key to the white keys in the circle of fifths, both G# and Ab have distance of 3 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, but why Ab is used more often than G#? 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This question looks like the reverse of a question on this same reference desk that I asked on February 21, 2022. It was about why some people think it's okay to avoid flats and just use sharps in place of their flat enharmonics. Please check it out. Georgia guy (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Link: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 February 21 § Rules for how to name black keys in music.  --Lambiam 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You've missed out mentioning C♯ major/A♯ minor, and C♭ major/A♭ minor (7♯/7♭). Three of these keys are well represented in the musical canon (including examples by Bach and Beethoven; see Overview of compositions with 7 accidentals), although for reasons I've never quite understood, A♯ minor is disfavoured almost to the point of invisibility. But not quite, as I've found a few examples in my travels (more than are shown in the linked list). Maybe your omission of these 7-accidental keys was a sort of mental bridge too far for you, and maybe that also explains why many people prefer flat keys over sharps. The physical shape of a battalion of ♯ signs might seem too brutal and threatening, compared with the softer, rounder, more swan-like ♭ signs. That's my theory. -- Jack of Oz 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@JackofOz: Regarding A♯ minor, I have a theory. C♯ major and A♭ minor make sense to use directly, because their parallel keys are normal keys with fewer accidentals, and using the seven-accidental keys in these cases avoids enharmonic shifting between parallel major and minor. C♭ major at least makes sense because of harp tuning, but you'll also notice it's significantly less common than C♯ major and A♭ minor. Meanwhile A♯ minor has neither driver pushing it into use, so it remains an extreme rarity. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

7# and 7b are rarely used, we usually use 5b in place of 7# and use 5# in place of 7b, since they are the same note, but 6# and 6b are also the same note. 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the theoretical keys (8# and 8b), all of F-flat major, G-sharp major, D-flat minor have their own articles, but why E-sharp minor is only a redirect? (♭ seems be more popular than ♯) 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This thread suffers from the fact that nobody has bothered to verify that the premise of the question is actually correct. What makes you believe flats are more frequently used than sharps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are two meanings of "popular", the word the OP used in his question. In the sense of liked or preferred, I can vouch that many people in my experience report a greater ease when playing pieces in flat keys compared with sharp keys. -- Jack of Oz 20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The bit at the very end is definitely correct - Eb minor is more common than D# minor as a key signature because the accidentals are simpler (the raised 6th and 7th are C-natural and D-natural, as opposed to B-sharp and C-double-sharp). Gb major might be preferred by analogy, as any piece in a major key from the classical and romantic periods tends to spend some time in the relative minor. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, both of the natural major and the natural minor have no additional sharp/flat, i.e. the natural F# major and the natural D# minor have “just” this 6 sharps, and the natural Gb major and the natural Eb minor have “just” this 6 flats, but if you use the harmonic scale or the melodic scale, you will have additional sharps/flats, harmonic major has an additional flat in the 6th note, harmonic minor has an additional sharp in the 7th note, melodic major (descending) has two additional flats in the 6th and 7th notes, melodic minor (ascending) has two additional sharps in the 6th and 7th notes, thus:

and the F# major together with the D# minor, and the Gb major together with the Eb minor, will use the same number of sharps/flats. 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Fortunately, IMSLP uses software like Misplaced Pages, so that entries can be categorised in many ways, including by key signature. Like WP, it depends on volunteers actually doing the work, so who knows whether the results of any analysis are mathematically meaningful. But, fwiw, here's what I found:

  There are 50,618 pieces in flat keys, compared with only 39,190 in sharp keys. Also, 17,701 in neutral keys (predominantly C major, 73%).

  80,554 pieces in major keys, compared with only 26,955 in minor keys.

• Looking at numbers of accidentals in key signatures, there's an unsurprising preference for fewer as compared to more:

  Neutral: keys 17,701

  1 accidental: 33,276

  2 accidentals: 24,391

  3 accidentals: 19,205

  4 accidentals: 9,027

  5 accidentals: 2,688

  6 accidentals: 796

  7 accidentals: 161

• That trend also applies when applied only to major keys, or only to minor keys.
• Looking at preference of major over minor within the above split, there's a very stable trend up to 5 accidentals:

  Neutral keys: 73.2% major

  1 accidental: 74.7% major

  2 accidentals: 74.9% major

  3 accidentals: 78.8% major

  4 accidentals: 72.9% major

  5 accidentals: 74.4% major

• But for the keys with 6 or 7 accidentals, it's roughly equal:

  6 accidentals: 52.9% major

  7 accidentals: 52.8% major.

• I surmise that that's because these keys are predominantly found in exercises and studies for advanced pianists, and are not even taught to beginners.
• None of above are terribly surprising, but they do perhaps serve to confirm the OP's premise, inter alia. -- Jack of Oz 22:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  JackofOz, that site is for old (pre-1929 for the time being; it will go up by one year every year) music. In modern popular music sharp keys appear to be more popular. Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you talking about score music or recorded popular music? The latter generally has much less notational or metatextual reason to strongly favor one enharmonic spelling over another. While B♭ vs. A♯ matters rather more for woodwind players reading from a score, it matters potentially not at all to a guitarist in a context where notation itself was largely optional and there generally wasn't expected to be a tonal relationship between discrete pieces. In any case, I wouldn't say it's "more popular" because it's simply not a choice that matters, so what the sticker on the fretboard (etc. etc.) says is perfectly serviceable as a label. Plus, of course, the most useful analysis of pop songs deriving in some way from the common practice would likely prefer one over the other regardless, but the distinction is often not prioritized by people entering the data. Remsense诉 22:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I found a formula, x+y gives the number of sharps/flats in this key (positive number means sharps, negative number means flats), if x+y is > +7 or < -7, then this key is only a theoretical key):

  x:

  B#: +10

  E#: +9

  A#: +8

  D#: +7

  G#: +6

  C#: +5

  F#: +4

  B: +3

  E: +2

  A: +1

  D: 0

  G: -1

  C: -2

  F: -3

  Bb: -4

  Eb: -5

  Ab: -6

  Db: -7

  Gb: -8

  Cb: -9

  Fb: -10

  y:

  Lydian: +3

  Ionian: +2

  Mixolydian: +1

  Dorian: 0

  Aeolian: -1

  Phrygian: -2

  Locrian: -3

  not count the theoretical keys (i.e. the keys with more than 7 sharps/flats), there are 15*7 = 105 possible keys (from B# Locrian (7#) to Fb Lydian (7b)). 61.224.150.139 (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  So Fb Locrian is the most theoretical key? With 13 flat symbols and you can't even remove some of them with the star=## symbol? I suppose you could have Bbbbbbbbbbbb Locrian but that's just ridiculous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. What's wrong with taking, say, an ascending C major scale and with a judicious use of multiple accidentals make it sound like a descending F-sharp minor scale. Simple, really:

C♯♯♯♯♯♯ D♯♯♯ E♭♭ F♭♭♭♭♭♭ G♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭ A♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭ B♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭ C♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭. -- Jack of Oz 22:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not add one more sharp symbol to B# Lydian and call it B# Superlydian, 15 sharps for B# Ultralydian and 16 sharps for B# Hyperlydian, then add one repeat per sharp after running out of Greek and Latin like Hyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperlydian? And add some flat modes with names like Infralocrian, Sublocrian and Hypolocrian? Maybe Hypsolocrian and Perlydian too. And Superphyrgian is just Locrian. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The invention of writing has been a disaster. Remsense诉 23:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Funniest thing I've read this year. :) -- Jack of Oz 05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually Superphyrgian would be minus 1, unless you want super to mean "more extreme in any direction" in which case you couldn't have unambiguous Superdorian anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What is “superlydian”, a key with much more sharps than dorian (the medium key)? Also “superlocrian” should be a key with much more flats than dorian (the medium key)? 2402:7500:943:D56F:909B:9877:85C8:AFAA (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I propose an SI metric prefix system for this. Rather than Superlydian, Ultralydian, and Hyperlydian, we use Kilolydian, Megalydian, and Gigalydian. Also, instead of Infralocrian, Sublocrian, and Hypolocrian, we use Millilocrian, Microlocrian, and Nanolocrian. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, Fb Locrian has the key signature the same as G-double-flat major and E-double-flat minor (i.e. 13 flats), and B# Lydian has the key signature the same as F-double-sharp major and D-double-sharp minor (i.e. 13 sharps), thus they are extremely theoretical keys and seldom used. 2402:7500:943:D56F:909B:9877:85C8:AFAA (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, I find the stuff that GalacticShoe wrote at 06:38 5 May 2024 to be just ridiculous! There are only 7 musical modes. Georgia guy (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically there's an extrapolatable logical order to which note gets the next sharp or flat right, so even though the key that is F♭ Locrian except the next letter gets another flat ("Fb Millilocrian") would be enharmonically equivalent to another key in one of the 7 modes and less than 14 accidentals it could also be the answer to "what's flatter than Locrian?" right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

:P GalacticShoe (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hitler's employment

What did Adolf Hitler do for a living between his military service and 1933? Adolf Hitler's rise to power mentions him holding a minor government position in Braunschweig, starting c. 1932, and I assume he was provided for by Bavaria when in prison, but otherwise I don't have an idea how he lived. Did he earn enough royalties from Mein Kampf to live on? Was he paid by the Party? Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

More detail at Adolf Hitler's rise to power#From Armistice (November 1918) to party membership (September 1919). On discharge from the army, he was an intelligence agent for the miltary, spying on political extremists, where he came into contact with the DAP - German Workers' Party (later the National Socialists), By early 1920, he was the party's head of propaganda, presumably a paid role. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

To the Threshold of Power, 1922/33: Origins and Dynamics of the Fascist and National Socialist Dictatorships (pp. 331-333) clarifies that he was an agent while still an army NCO and agreed to join the DAP leadership in January 1920 because of impending military cutbacks (which implies that it was indeed a paid post, although I couldn't find anything that specifically says so). Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"You were supposed to investigate the DAP! Not join them!" JIP | Talk 06:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw has a couple of bits about this in Hubris. In the early 20s he had various well-to-do supporters who gave support in a variety of ways, accommodation, transport, hosting dinners, and cash. Later, as we enter the 30s Kershaw says "Hitler had from the earliest years of his 'career', as we have seen, been supported by generous donations from benefactors. But by the early 1930s he was less dependent on financial support from private patrons, even if his celebrity status now unquestionably brought him many unsolicited donations. His sources of income have remained largely in the dark". He didn't receive a salary or speaking fees from the party, but instead received "hidden fees" - expenses based on the size of the audience, again accommodation, transport, uniforms, etc. By '32 he was earning a lot from his book, articles for newspapers and magazines, interview fees, etc. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've not yet read it, but Pool, James; Pool, Suzanne (1979). Who Financed Hitler; The Secret Funding Of Hitler's Rise To Power, 1919-1933. Macdonald and Jane's. ISBN 0-354-04395-1. looks well-worth a go. DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Which points out, that in 1919, "Hitler was still on the full-time payroll of the Reichswehr as a political agent." Modocc (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but it was after he left the military that is the mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was unaware that he'd remained in the military after the war (I didn't read the earlier section of the article, and figured he'd left the army soon after the Armistice, if not sooner), so I didn't know that he remained in the Army after the war's end. Thus "he remained in the military" actually answers part of what I was looking for, even though it doesn't exactly answer the question. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nyttend, I have added a brief note to the article directly after the text which states that he was discharged from the army in March 1920 and began full-time work for the Nazi Party:

Although the NSDAP claimed that Hitler received no income from them and lived on the fees he received from public speaking at non-party events, he was actually supported financially by several wealthy patrons and party sympathisers.

I have referenced it to Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (pp. 159-160) by Ian Kershaw, which you can read on archive.org if you want more detail. Trust this is adequate. My thanks to DuncanHill for the reference. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We have an article Adolf Hitler's wealth and income which is particularly lacking for the period of this question. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted to fill the gap in that article, but it needs a lot more work. feel free to chip in. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2

Profile painting of a man wearing a turban or similar in a blue background

Hello, I've seen a lot of time ago a picture of man, facing left or right, possibly with a beard, eyes closed, wearing a peculiar hat in a blue backgound. Could be a painting or a colored photo, can't really say. I've looking for painting of doges, sultans, popes with no results. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance. Carnby (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Carnby, would you happen to remember any details of where you saw this picture, or roughly what the hat may have looked like? No worries if not, just wanted to see if I could narrow it down. GalacticShoe (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe have a look through Category:Portraits of sultans of the Ottoman Empire? You're not giving us much to go on. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I know you've mentioned paintings of doges already, but it wouldn't happen to be File:Marco Barbarigo.jpg, would it? Man in profile, peculiar hat, on a blue background, only missing the optional beard and closed eyes (although it's somewhat difficult to discern whether his eyes are open or closed from a distance.) GalacticShoe (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alansplodge@GalacticShoe Thanks for your efforts. I meant something like this. Hope it helps.-- Carnby (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

May 3

Women trafficked to the harems in the 20th-century

Hello, I have read about slavery in Saudi Arabia and the Trucial states, which ended in the 1960s. One aspect of this was the use of female slaves as concubines in harems, which ocurred until the 1960s. What I wonder about is: were there any European women who fell victims to this slave trade in the 20th-century? That is the period of 1900 until the 1960s, when slavery was abolished.

The text books I read were not very clear: it was noted that European women were the most expensive in the 19th-century, but in the 20th-century the only slave trade described were the Red Sea slave trade. It was briefly mentioned that a small minority of the slaves were European, but only in passing.

Is it known if there were any trafficking of European female slaves to the Arabian Peninsula in the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s? Perhaps reports of trafficking in European women at the time? Thanks--92.35.238.97 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

From the late 19th century through the 1960s, that would have been called "White Slavery" and was a perennial topic of sensationalistic newpaper headlines and highly fictionalized accounts in pulp men's adventure magazines. Around 1980, I actually read parts of a book (probably published in the 1960s or early 1970s) about "white slavery" in the Arab world, but I have no idea now of the title or author, and it focused more on North Africa than the Gulf. As far as I can remember, many of the cases were about young Western European women who were kind of blackmailed into sex-trafficking. Their situations were sad, but according to the author (who had a definite personality in his writing), many of them had made stupid decisions along the way and/or been cast aside by their families. A big thing in the book was "photo slavery", which has resemblances to today's manipulations of getting someone to send a nude selfie, and using that one to blackmail her into sending even more, but of course without smartphones, and the women didn't take their own photos. I don't think there's anything about it on Misplaced Pages, and I can't find any way to search for it specifically on Google. AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that term, and that trafficking was sensationalized, but that was more about victims of the sex trafficking to brothels. I was specifically asking about European women trafficked to harems in the Arabian Peninsula in 1900-1960s, where slavery was in fact still legal at the time, and women were indeed concubines (sex slaves) in the harems at that time period. Slavery was abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen in 1962, in the Trucial States/United Arab Emirates in 1963, in Oman in 1970, and female sex slaves/concubines were a reality in that region. I am aware that European women were trafficked there historically, but did that still hapen in the 20th-century? --92.35.238.97 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There was domestic "white slavery" and international "white slavery"; the International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic was aimed at the latter... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I expect that law could be used against it. But it still speak mainly of the illegal sex trafficking to brothels, rather than the chattel slavery to the harems which were still legal in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. Are there any cases known in the 1930s-1960s were it is confirmed that European women were sold to the harems in this time period? --92.35.238.97 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Declining numbers of US lawyers

Since 2020, and for the first time in 100 years, the number of active lawyers in the U.S. has been decreasing: ABA National Lawyer Population Survey. Do we know why? Do we have articles addressing this trend? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would think the pandemic might have something to do with it. 2A00:23C4:79CD:B301:65BA:2E7F:4E84:886 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would the number of lawyers decrease during the pandemic? Still, to support your assumption, "from 2022 to 2023, the number of active lawyers counted by the survey rose slightly, by just over 4,000, or three-tenths of one percent" (Source). So it's growing again but:

• The number of lawyers in 2023 is still 1.6% below 2019 (1,352,077),
• It only grew by +0.3% in 2023, which is the second lowest growth rate since 1955 (after +0.1% in 2002 and excluding the 3 years of decline)

I also found that the median real incomes of lawyers have been declining and "Between 2008 and 2019, lawyers’ income share of the national gross domestic product fell from 1.64% to 1.32% because clients purchased lawyers’ services less often.". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This may be more related to demographics than anything else. For example, shows that in the UK the number of practising solicitors and barristers over the nine quarters from Q4 2021 to Q4 2023 went down>up>up>down>up>down>up>down. There was a drop of 11,500 (about 1/2 per cent) between Q4 2021 and Q1 2022, and from Q1 2022 to Q4 2023 the number rose by 21,900. 2A00:23C4:79CD:B301:65BA:2E7F:4E84:886 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Data since August 2011 shows a linear growth of practising solicitors in England and Wales. However, the process to become a solicitor was reformed and simplified in 2021. Without this reform, what would be the numbers? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can pin this down specifically. For example, this shows that the number of practising barristers in England and Wales has risen continuously between 2019 and 2023, but this increase represents only 800 individuals. There's an in-depth discussion at . 2A00:23C4:79CD:B301:65BA:2E7F:4E84:886 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Barristers are less than 10% of all UK lawyers (including also trademark & patent attorneys and CILEX lawyers). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they keep working for a certain ex-president and get disbarred as a result? Chuntuk (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Chuntuk, I doubt it; per the ABA, just 2,791 lawyers were publicly disciplined in 2021, and just 479 of them were disbarred. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Danish Islands

Is there a collective name, modern or historical, for the Danish Islands between Schleswig and Scania? I'm referring to Zealand, Funen, Lolland, Falster and othe minor islands. Thank you! 195.62.160.60 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not in English as far as I can tell. Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We got these here: Sydhavsøerne (informal) and South Funen Archipelago. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles on these islands in the Danish Misplaced Pages do not reveal some collective name that covers all these islands. The article on Denmark itself mentions "the Danish islands" (de danske øer) lying between Kattegat and the Baltic Sea, but this descriptive name is IMO not meant to be a proper noun. Clearly, North Jutlandic Island, not lying between these sea areas, is also a Danish island.  --Lambiam 20:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The term "Danish Archipelago" seems to have been invented in the lede of our article Geography of Denmark, and was marked as 'citation needed' a year ago. It's evidently not official or (from a web search) widely used, so "referred to as the Danish Archipelago" should probably be deleted. Many English speakers familiar with Denmark would probably understand what it referred to, but others might confuse it with the Danish Wadden Sea Islands. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May 4

What industries dominate each U.S. state?

Wideul (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This article from Forbes Magazine answers your question with data from 2022. Xuxl (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

American Constitution and Art support

Can the US government actually support certain artists or artistic genres over others, or does that violate the Constitution?
E.g. support a theater group over another group? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:88E7:5787:DF5B:D23F (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

See National Endowment for the Arts. U.S. federal cultural funding is quite limited compared to some other countries, where there can be a Culture Minister or similar in the national cabinet... AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The US Constitution does not speak to the issue. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

While the US Constitution does not speak to the general case, it's likely some aspects of the constitution can come into play in specific cases. For example, if Congress passed a law giving special preference to Christian music or something else that is specifically Christian for the reason that it is Christian, this is likely to come into conflict with most recentish interpretations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution especially under the pre-Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Lemon Test. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May 5

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk