This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Golbez (talk | contribs) at 06:56, 21 November 2024 (→Is it illegal for an American to pay prostitutes for sex: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

November 7

Block evasion.

Turkey bone

What happens when an American president-elect chokes to death on a turkey bone on Christmas Day, before inauguration in January, while he is still an ordinary citizen? The vice president-elect is still an ordinary citizen, too.

Since the president-elect is not a sitting president, then a president has not died therefore the vice president-elect cannot succeed a non-president?

Any resemblance in this question to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. Only the turkey is real. Spideog (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Spideog, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that if the president-elect dies before inauguration day, the vice president-elect gets sworn in instead. The issue is precisely when the winner legally becomes president-elect. One could argue that would be January 6 when Congresss certifies the electoral vote count. On the other hand, presidential transition legislation kicks in pretty early, and I read that Trump's transition team signed a lease for office space with the GSA today. Here is a relevant GSA press release.

See Second presidential transition of Donald Trump and United States presidential transition. Were Trump to die on Christmas Day, I suspect that there might be some legal maneuvering but I am pretty confident that JD Vance would be sworn in on January 20, 2025. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for your reply. Had I anyone actually in mind, your reply could have dashed my hopes, however, for legal reasons, "only the turkey is real". Spideog (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

President-elect of the United States notes that the US Code has a term for an individual in Trump's and Vance's current positions, "apparent successful candidates", given the need for months of transition. However, Trump hasn't actually been elected president yet — theoretically, there's nothing preventing all the Republican electors voting for Vance-Trump instead of Trump-Vance — so at the minimum, his special status for succession purposes doesn't start until the actual election in mid-December. Were he to die before then, the 1872 United States presidential election has a precedent, although it had no practical effect because the deceased candidate in that election was analogous to Harris, not Trump. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"there's nothing preventing all the Republican electors voting for Vance-Trump instead of Trump-Vance" - Except a multitude of state laws that require the electors to vote as pledged. So, I believe that you mean there is nothing preventing the states to re-pledge the electors to vote Vance-Trump, except a multitude of state laws requiring the state to enforce the votes of the citizens. So, it isn't really as simple as saying "Let's change our mind at the last minute." In the end, it will be a lot of money spent on lawyers and likely even larger payoffs to politicians to get to the end result everyone expects. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Format of US congressional committee testimony

Whenever I see older pictures of congressional committee testimony, the members are just sitting around a table with the person who's testifying; the physical format is very different from today, when the members all sit in a long line or two, facing the speaker who sits at a table or stands at a podium in front of the centre of the line of members. When did this change, and why? I'm guessing that the "why" is related to television news (the members all know each other and don't need the "Mr Soandso" signs, but they're useful for TV viewers; maybe the viewer-friendly format is meant for casual viewers too), but no idea when. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Army-McCarthy hearings were probably the first to be intensively televised (as far as that was possible in 1954), and from what I can tell from searching in Google Images, used the table format... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A film about the 1957–1959 hearings of the McClellan Committee shows the testifying witnesses sitting at a separate witness table, facing a large oval table at which the committee members are seated on one side. At the Fulbright hearings of 1966, a clip such as that of the testimony of General James Gavin show the witness likewise seated at a separate table, facing a semicircular structure behind which the committee members are seated, with Fulbright in the middle.  --Lambiam 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

November 10

Leg Day

In anything American, I keep coming across "Leg Day". There is no article on it so what is it? Is it just a fancy name for exercise? Is it a sports day? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a term from weight training. Many people let muscle groups rest for a day or so after training them, before doing it again. Some people who want to do weights more than every other day might set up a cycle where they do, say, an upper-body workout one day, then lower-body the next day, and the latter would be leg day.

I am not saying this is a good idea or a bad idea; this is just my understanding of what it means.

The article that would most naturally cover such a plan, at a quick look, would be sports periodization, but I do not see it covered there. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has a lot of gym-faring friends, I can confirm that it's exactly this. It's a day for focusing specifically on leg exercises. GalacticShoe (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please create an article on it? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the best course would to have it redirect to split weight training. GalacticShoe (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're missing the joke. The reason "leg day" has currency is because it's mostly used as a joke to poke fun at people who forget to do their legs when they are seeing so much results in their upper body. So a lot of times you see people with massive arms and bulging chests, but little stick legs. I don't think we need a separate article on the joke, but something should be said about "skipping leg day" in the primary topic articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Then that needs to be in an article too! HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On average the majority of muscle mass is in the lower body. One way to increase muscle mass is to "train to failure". If you only fail once you are not fatiguing all your motor units. You begin with heavy weights and exercise till failure. Decrease the resistance and go again. Repeat. Again. During this time all the fun products of anaerobic exercise are building up in your muscle tissue and lots of microtraumas are happening which you will feel the next day. Try it. Then you'll know what "leg day" means. fiveby(zero) 02:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not all of us are going to do that. Please write an article! HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is know-that. Can't transfer know-of to another. fiveby(zero) 03:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Split weight training is another option. Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see in the notes above that leg day refers to a tough day because a proper leg day workout is more tiring than other workouts. In other words, it is day people tend to hate more. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

November 11

“marrying the state” instead of the father of their children

Hello to many helpers. In the book "The better angels of our nature" by Steven PINKER that I've just finished reading in a French translation. I found a strange phrase. Here is the full sentence translated by Deepl from the French translation : "This trend, already visible in the early 1960s, may have been greatly amplified by the sexual revolution, then by the perverse effects of certain social policies encouraging young women to “marry the state” instead of the father of their children.
My question is : What means "MARRY THE STATE" in the USA? I thank you for your help. Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

See Aid to Families with Dependent Children, particularly the sections Man-in-the-house rule and Criticism. --Amble (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

“Marrying the State” refers to the idea that an unwed mother, getting welfare benefits for her children, will remain unwed - due to fear that she will no longer qualify for those benefits if she gets married. Thus, she will choose the welfare system (the State) over having a husband. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The original English text: "This trend, already visible in the early 1960s, may have been multiplied by the sexual revolution and yet again by perverse welfare incentives that encouraged young women to "marry the state" instead of the fathers of their children.  --Lambiam 23:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

November 12

Mixed-handed fencing duels

In a famous duel film scene, for a brief time the opponents fight with different hands. But does history know actual (possibly deadly) fencing duels between right-handers and left-handers? If so, is there any evidence which hand has an advantage? I would assume the edge is on the left-handers' side, as they were certainly trained to fight with right-handers - but not that usually vice-versa. --KnightMove (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear advantage to left-handed fencers (and boxers). It is believed to be, as you stated, a frequency issue. Less than 10% of fencers are believed to be left-handed. So, right-handed fencers rarely get practice against left-handed fencers, but left-handed fencers compete with right-handed fencers most of the time. As proof, nearly 25% of the top-rated fencers are left-handed. So, they are over-represented. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Related trivia: Tua Tagovailoa is right-handed. He plays football left-handed. His father pushed him to throw left-handed at a young age because it gives him an advantage. For the opposing team, the "strong side" and "weak side" are flipped and, theoretically, they make more mistakes. You can claim that this offense has to play a flipped field, but they practice that way every day, so it isn't unusual for them. It is only a problem if Tua can't play and the backup (a right-handed passer) has to step in. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinked the player's name above for those interested in following it up. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Vacancies/vacant sees

According to our article List of bishops in the Church of England there are six vacant sees, Ely, Carlisle, Truro, Coventry, Durham, and Worcester. Has there ever been a time when more have been vacant at the same time? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

James II wanted to get rid of Seven Bishops, though events prevented him, and six bishops were removed a few years later in 1691 for refusing to declare allegiance to William III. Also, near the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign "Seven bishops, including Cardinal Pole, Mary's Archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1558 and needed to be replaced", while the surviving bishops were Catholic, and were displaced (except two). AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You win. I reckon it peaked at twenty vacant sees between 5 July and 14 July 1559. --Antiquary (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Does your interest extend to pre-Reformation English bishops? Our less scrupulous medieval kings liked to keep sees vacant for as long as they could get away with it because they could pocket the revenues. By my reckoning, from 8 July to 5 October 1214 King John kept Carlisle, Chichester, Coventry, Durham, Exeter, Rochester, Worcester and York vacant – eight in all. I don't know if that's any kind of record. --Antiquary (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it was as simple as that. Pope Innocent III interfered with the appointment of bishops, placing John under an interdict. 2A00:23D0:72D:8E01:70A8:F213:EE38:5671 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I used to pray at intercession in church at Sunday communion for Peter Ball when he was bishop of Gloucester, so I'm recusing myself from this discussion. MinorProphet (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Generative deity names

I don't know of a satisfying etymology for Priapus, has anyone suggested a connection to Prajapati? Temerarius (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Our article Prajapati states that (according to Robert Graves) the name is etymologically equivalent to that of Phanes. While I'm not quite sure what this statement means, our article Phanes mentions that in the Orphic Hymns he is given the title "Lord Priapos".  --Lambiam 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A Sanskrit "j" generally corresponds to an Indo-European (and Greek) "g", so I don't see how that enables a connection to Priapus. Also, the "-pati" part of Prajapati contains the same IE root as in the well-known Greek term potnia, but the second "p" of Priapus is certainly not part of such a root... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Πρίαπος is not mentioned before the 4th century BCE, and most scholars dated the Orphic Hymns to around the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE, so (especially as a title for Protogonos) a late borrowing or at least influence from the name Prajapati, rather than inheritance from a PIE ancestor name, cannot be excluded a priori.  --Lambiam 05:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think so. There were some contacts and cultural influences between Greek and Indian cultures (mostly after Alexander's conquests, of course), but the only two Indic-language religious words which were at all commonly known in the Mediterranean area were Brahmana and Sramana, and they were rather foreign-sounding in the Greek language (see Gymnosophists). I don't see how an Indic word could embed itself into Mediterranean mythology, and an Indic "j" consonant would likely be borrowed into Hellenistic Greek as "z" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Since, according to his article, this god is first recorded in the Greek world from the Greek colony of Lampsacus in the Northern Troad (i.e. in Asia Minor), the name may originate in a non-Greek and even non-IE language. Prior to the Greeks, a number of cultures and hence languages occupied or dominated the area, and I'm not sure what the 'original' indigenous language there might have been. I notice a slight resemblance between Priapus and Priam, which might suggest Luwian as a possible IE origin. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

November 13

sites like nationalmap.gov, to search for e.g. all streams named "brook"

On nationalmap.gov, you can search for (e.g.) any US places with "deer" in their name (and you will find that there are towns, valleys, streams, etc), or any waterfalls in California with "rainbow" in their name. Logainm.ie appears to function somewhat similarly for Irish place names. Does anyone know of an equivalent for the UK, France, or Germany? A quick search finds me some sites where you can look up any towns in the UK with "deer" (etc) in their names, but I don't just want to search town names, I want to be able to search place names of all types.
(If you know of equivalents for any other countries, feel free to mention them, too!) -sche (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You can query OpenStreetMap data; see , for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I found British placename mapper. It returned surprisingly few results for deer, but two were streets and another apparently a wood.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(Edit) Some sources for the UK:

• The Ordnance Survey has an Emergency Services Gazetteer; they charge for it, but there is some sort of free trial (limited area) on that web page.
• The Association of British Counties maintains a Gazetteer of British Place Names
• The National Library of Scotland hosts the GB1900 place name project gathered from OS 6"/mile maps between 1888 and 1913
• BritishPlaceNames.uk combines data from a variety of sources
• FamilySearch has a gazetteer (OK, a list) of gazetteers covering England

-- Verbarson  _edits 16:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata has a query interface that's very flexible and general (although we can't guarantee it is complete). Here's an example query searching for watercourses in the UK with "deer" in the name: . It returns four entries: River Deer, Deer Burn, River Deerness, and Red-deer burn. --Amble (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

But note, -sche (if it's relevant to your purpose – it may not be) that this will not find names with an element that originally meant 'deer' (as in this example) but are spelled differently, such as Dereham. {The poster formerly kown as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Or indeed Hertford or Hartlepool (from hart). Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But not (it seems) any of the several Bucklands, which to my surprise do not reference male deer, but to ownership being originally conveyed by a charter (or 'boc') rather than by folk ('folc') testimony: see Bookland (law). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. In particular britishplacenames.uk, though seemingly not as powerful as nationalmap.gov because it seems to only show the first 100 results (so if I'm looking for e.g. streams with a certain name, but that name is more commonly applied to forests or towns or whatnot, the towns etc can crowd the streams out of the list), epns.nottingham.ac.uk (linked from Family Search), and the Wikidata query method are helpful. -sche (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

November 15

Would the United States congress be able to expell states?

Simple question : my understanding about the secession war is that states can't secede unilaterally... But what about a simple congress vote even if the state doesn't want to leave the Union? A motivation would be to get the required quorum to repeal an amendment to the constitution... 82.66.26.199 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's kind of implied by Article IV, which says that Congress doesn't have power to unilaterally redefine a state: "...no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That says the opposite of what OP asked? For example, it says that Northern California can't split off into a separate state, not that Congress can't kick out a state. Phil Ochs once proposed something like the latter but as far as I know, it didn't get any traction. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What I was understanding is joining like Texas is a simple vote. And I looked at the post civil war jurisprudence that ruled why secession was illegal. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:417A:1147:400C:C498 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As you see at Reserved powers, the US Constitution specifies in the 10th Amendment that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, unless prohibited to the states. Since the Constitution does not talk about expelling a state, it follows that the federal government does not have that power. (Unless, of course, someone convinces the Supreme Court that something in the Constitution implies such power.) --142.112.149.206 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That stuff contradicts the post civil war supreme court ruling because that would imply on the reverse that states have the power to seceede by themselves. And that doesn t tell about a state asking Congress to leave. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:417A:1147:400C:C498 (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

think literally, the way a state leaves is the same as how a state is created because leaving is the same as creating a new state; It would take congressional approval and that states legislatures approval. They would be creating a new state, but the sovereignty of that new state would be equal with the United States, not subordinate as what we think of as a state traditionally is. 208.121.35.65 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't even do it by constitutional amendment. Article V says no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I suppose theoretically you could pass an amendment that says "OK, California gets to send two senators because we can't do anything about that, but for all other purposes it is no longer a state of the United States".

Could you do this last by statute, without an amendment? I sincerely doubt it. But I suppose the question would have to be tested in court. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That means that every state has the same number of senators, unless for some inexplicable reason a state wanted only one senator. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Which implies that you can't expel a state, unless you let it have the same number of senators as the states you don't expel. --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you expel a state, they're no longer part of the USA, so their senators would be irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Bugs. Come on, you're smarter than that. If you expel the state and don't let it keep its senators, then you are depriving of it of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. You can't do it, period, not even with an amendment. It's an entrenched clause, the only one remaining in our constitution that can have any actual effect. (Theoretically, you also can't prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808, but....) --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If a state has been expelled, it's no longer in the union. The former state could have as many senators as they want, but they won't be sitting in the U.S. Senate, so it doesn't matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. The state cannot be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, so its senators have to be allowed to vote. If you argue that senators from a non-state can't vote, then you're forced to the conclusion that you can't expel the state in the first place. There's nothing subtle here. --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(I think this really is the most natural conclusion: Article V is an absolute and permanent bar to ever expelling a state without its consent under any circumstances whatsoever, and this cannot be changed by amendment or any sequence of amendments. As long as the Constitution itself is not entirely overthrown, states cannot be expelled and must be allowed to keep their equal vote in the Senate. My workaround about expelling the state but still letting it vote in the Senate was mostly a quibble. Whether you could first de-entrench the clause with one amendment, then disfranchise a state in a second one, is a more difficult question, but I would tend to think the answer is no.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If they've been expelled, then they are no longer a state. Their only recourse would be to take it to the Supreme Court. For that, we have the post-Civil War precedent, where states had essentially expelled themselves, and had to earn their way back into the Union. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Bugs. YOU CAN'T DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR VOTE IN THE SENATE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Period. If expulsion, would have that effect, then YOU CAN'T EXPEL THEM. Again, there is no subtlety here. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You can do anything with a constitutional amendment, at that point the power resides with whoever can force their interpretation through. Even without that, I would hesitate to discount legal shenanigans. There's a long history of constitutional reinterpretation in the United States, and the current At least one US supreme court judge has previously called into question the 14th amendment the incoming government seems to want to remove. CMD (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You say "you can do anything with a constitutional amendment", but that is incorrect, by Article V, as I explain above. Why you're linking to articles about Singapore I have no idea. --Trovatore (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you can think of better examples of states that were expelled, I would be interested. CMD (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just irrelevant to American constitutional law. Malaysia has a completely different system. No American state has ever been expelled. The ones that seceded, at the time of the American Civil War, are admittedly a complicated case, with the official legal position being that they never legally seceded at all (a side effect of Texas v. White, which really wasn't about that question), but on the other hand having to be "readmitted" under the Reconstruction Laws. --Trovatore (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Peau de soie

Hello. I read the following sentence in a translation EN→FR of Herbert Lieberman's Necropolis (Paris, France loisirs, 1983, p.135): « (…) à côté de lui, une femme brune, très petite, vêtue d'une longue peau de soie en dentelle, belle plutôt que jolie, regard intense et attachant.»

The wording "a long peau de soie in lace" makes me think that peau de soie is the name of a clothing but I can't find which one on the web - unless use these terms to designate only a type of silk (incidentally ignored on fr.WP).

But maybe the French translation is bad... Does anyone have the English version of this novel? Or does anyone know the meaning of peau de soie as clothing?

Could you enlighten me? Thanks already, Égoïté (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's an entry for this term on Wiktionary: en:wikt:peau de soie. Also see paduasoy. --Amble (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is wel there: the sentence in French indicates that the woman is dressed, therefore wearing a garment. We would not say in French that she is dressed in a long wool or a long silk.

In addition, the Wiktionary says: "heavy closely-woven silk fabric, faced with satin on both sides" and the text of the novel speaks of lace. The lace could be silk but not tightly woven covered with satin on both sides! (And, by the way, satin is not a material but a way of weaving.) Égoïté (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC) (sorry for my English)

Lieberman's original on Google Books: "...beside him, a dark, diminutive woman in long peau de soie lace, more handsome than pretty, with a strikingly arresting gaze." It's a normal construction in English: "he was in tweed", "she was in black silk", and so on. --Antiquary (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much Antiquary ! So I translate "à côté de lui, une femme brune, petite, vêtue de longues dentelles en peau de soie, plus belle que jolie..." Thank you !Égoïté (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "From French xx " always means the term given is to be used in French like from the English sentence (vitrinelinguistique). The safest path it seems would be to find a fashion account, in French, reporting about the Wedding of Princess Beatrice and Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, in July 2020 : dress is made from ivory peau de soie taffeta and is trimmed with ivory duchess satin. --Askedonty (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Detroit Branch

Why do they have to call it a branch of Chicago?? Why can't they simply call it the "Federal Reserve Bank of Detroit"?? Or even the "Federal Reserve Bank 7th District Detroit Branch" as distinguished from the main Chicago branch?? (Please answer with something that is valid regardless of what federal reserve bank branch I'm asking this question about.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not a separate legal entity from the "Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago", and as such it wouldn't make sense to call it the "Federal Reserve Bank of Detroit". In theory the branch could have been called "Federal Reserve Bank 7th District Detroit Branch", however as "Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago" is the recognized name for the organization, using 7th District in the name of the branch office would just introduce confusion. Amstrad00 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve Act specifies what the Federal Reserve Banks are, how many there should be (at least 8 but not than 12), how they are governed, how they may establish branches, and what the banks and districts are to be named. So a valid answer to your question is "because it's the law". The authors of the law could have chosen a different system, but I don't see why they would have wanted to; these names make pretty good sense to me. Note that each Federal Reserve Bank is owned by its shareholders, the individual banks that are members of that Federal Reserve Bank. A different Federal Reserve Bank would have its own shares, its own member banks, and its own governance. A branch does not. You could ask your congressional representatives to sponsor a bill replacing the current system with something else. --Amble (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussed at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 October 17#Letters for US Federal Reserve branches. 2A00:23D0:50D:E501:51FF:910C:BEC9:3E2F (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Polygon

How serious do people take Polygon in terms of their critical commentary? They just released a ranking of all MCU films that I find to be completely off the mark. Do people find these rankings helpful or informative? Looking closely at their lists, anything that has more drama and dialogue than action is automatically ranked lower. I can't accept that people actually think this way. Is this normal? Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

IDK aboout Polygon in particular, but I frequently see articles about movies, or even bodies of writing about particular movies, that seem completely wrong. I have often thought movie X was terrible, even though its reviews were almost entirely favorable. Sometimes vice versa too. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that any review that disagrees with your personal, subjective opinion is "wrong"? How dare they write their review without consulting you first? -- Jack of Oz 20:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would expect reviewers to have a range of responses just like moviegoers do. So some of the reviewers' opinions would coincide with mine and others would not. If I think a movie is bad and all the reviewers think it is good, then yes, it makes me feel like something is wrong with the reviewing establishment. I'm not any kind of movie expert and I don't think my opinion is anything special or unique. So I'd expect my reaction to a movie to be shared with at least a few others, including a few reviewers. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I expect that the group of movie reviews that you or anyone typically reads will be a small sub-set of all such reviews, and what you find in your sub-set will not necessarily be representative of the full spectrum of opinions. -- Jack of Oz 21:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, people who are more or less unfamiliar with the comics go to MCU movies specifically for the action. So I have no problem believing idea that general entertainment reviewers focus on and prioritize that aspect of the movies. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

spoiler effect

The article spoiler effect (about losing candidates affecting election outcomes) doesn't have much to say about whether the effect is a good thing or a bad thing as a question of political theory. It refers to "independence of irrelevant alternatives" but doesn't give meaningful support to that principle, and there are obvious arguments against it. Can anyone recommand any noteworthy literature on this, particularly the view favoring spoilers? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about their role in more complicated voting systems, but in "First Past the Post" or plurality voting inside each state of the United States, there's a prima facie plausible case to be made that spoiler candidates affected the outcome of both the 1992 and 2000 presidential elections. Of course, Ross Perot in 1992 was a lot closer to being a viable candidate than Ralph Nader in 2000. Some claim that without the 2000 Nader campaign, there wouldn't have been a 2003 Iraq war. Replacing plurality voting with another electoral system might make it possible for people to vote for minor-party candidates without fearing that this would help elevate their worst option to the presidency. This would allow some people to express a greater range of opinions with their vote, but might lessen major-party cohesion... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept as a fact that Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Gore, or (alternatively) as Nader put it, "Al Gore cost me the presidency". So the spoiler effect is real, though it could have happened the other way too (Pat Buchanan got some right wing votes in 2000 iirc). I tend to think Perot didn't change the 1992 outcome but that's harder to know. I'm wondering if there are established arguments (e.g. from game theory) that the spoiler effect in general is a good thing or a bad thing. Certainly similar effects happen throughout real life and not just elections, like in good–better–best pricing of soft drinks at the movies, Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Historians believe that Clinton won the 1992 election because Perot took votes away from Bush 41. It is likely that Bush 41 would have won if Perot hadn't entered the race. I personally believe this was true based on the people I knew who supported Perot; there were a lot of them. The more interesting thing is how Perot paved the way for Trump to emerge. Carville famously said, "If Trump is the Jesus of blue-collar populism, then Ross Perot was its John the Baptist." Lots of truth there. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus among historians about Perot being a spoiler. Perot took votes from both candidates and there is a significant (maybe not majority, idk) view that in the end, he didn't matter. I can certainly believe historians differ with each other on the question.

In Trump-Harris 2024 of course the real spoiler was abstainers. So to really eliminate the spoiler effect we'd need mandatory voting as well as IRV or whatever. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at the numbers. Bush lost because almost 20% of Republicans voted for Perot. I was there. I remember when it all went down. As for Trump-Harris, the spoiler was Harris, Biden, and the DNC. To wage an effective and targeted campaign, Biden needed to have announced his retirement well in advance, priming the American people that he was only a one term president. That, of course, never happened. That it got so late and so far past the point of no return, to the point where most people didn't know there was a problem until the middle of 2024 when the debate debacle occurred, that was the end. I watched it live and couldn't believe what I was seeing. Harris was not a popular candidate nor was she chosen by a primary or a convention in relation to other potential challengers, she was anointed, and she didn't have enough time to wage a serious campaign. However, if you insist on a real existential spoiler aside from the involved parties, there is an emerging consensus that the conservative media ecosystem is decades ahead of Democrats, to the point where there is virtually no liberal media except for MSNBC, and even there, it is center to center-right. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The flaw in much of this reasoning is in making assumptions about what people would have done if so-and-so wasn't in the race. Or, for that matter, if so-and-so was in the race. A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016 didn't like Hillary so didn't bother voting. It would have been interesting to see how Trump would have done head-to-head with Sanders. But we'll never know for sure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well we're getting away from the question of whether the possibility of spoilers is good or bad. In any specific election it obviously depends on what outcome you want. Btw at least a few Sanders supporters in 2016 ended up voting for Trump. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Define "good" and "bad". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. In politics, of all things, what's good for someone is bad for someone else. And you'll always be able to find sources saying that this or that circumstance, voting system, whatever is a good thing, and a bad thing. Ultimately, it's subjective, and the Ref Desk cannot decree that it's one thing or another. -- Jack of Oz 20:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Does Australia have compulsory voting? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, at least at Federal and State election level. There are PSA announcements (tee-hee) on TV before elections that end with the voice-over saying "voting is compulsory". Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Bugs, good question (good vs bad). Let's say, good = steering public policy towards where the electorate wants it to be, even when the entrenched leadership of the major parties wants it to be someplace different. I'm wondering if this question has been studied in the political or economics literature. Jack, I didn't ask for a decree from the ref desk, I asked whether there is existing published work on the issue. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this question has been studied in the political or economics literature.

Yes, quite famously, in fact. See Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page 2014. For the sake of transparency, the conservative establishment pushed back quite a bit on this, which is to be expected, but their response is just denial, in my opinion. They do this kind of thing a lot, often coordinating their denials as shared talking points. Gilens and Page were correct, but the staus quo won't accept it. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look at that. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, can you check the page number in that citation? The pdf starts on page 564. 2014 is the publication year. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"without fearing that this would help elevate their worst option to the presidency" Define worst option. The way the two-party system worked in Greece between 1977 and 2012, the two dominant parties were New Democracy (a combination of conservatives, various shades of liberals, and reactionaries who found a new political home) and PASOK (nominal socialists with increasingly pro-business interests). Both had plenty of corruption scandals, both had close ties to business elites, and both were rather reluctant to reform chronic bureaucratic problems in the public sector. At some point many of the voters had problems in seeing any actual difference between them. My understanding of two-party systems is that the voter gets the option to choose between two political parties which are both deaf to the voter's needs. Dimadick (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, oh I see, Benjamin I. Page was one of the authors of that article published in 2014, so you gave the name and year. I thought you were saying to look at page 2014 of the article. Ok I will read the article but a quick scan didn't seem to say anything about the spoiler effect. Dimadick, creating the possibility of electing the worst candidate is basically the definition of the spoiler effect. It's something like a doomsday device that can trigger if the lesser of two evils major-party candidate is insufficiently popular.

There are various arguments (some crazy I'm sure) for and against the intentional creation of a doomsday device. Many alternative voting systems like IRV aim to get rid of the spoiler effect. So I'm looking for the arguments for and against getting rid of it. IRV proponents seem to automatically assume that the effect is a bad thing and eliminating it is good. I would like to see a careful analysis of this assumption.

Note, I think the US two-party system, and the spoiler effect, are supposed to be emergent properties of the first past the post voting system that we use, by Duverger's law. Greek elections are different and the effects are less strong. I don't want to get soapboxy but Syriza did manage to win in Greece in 2015, only to squander its mandate through incredibly dumb errors by people who knew better but shut their eyes. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Viriditas, I looked at that article and I think I had heard of it before. It says basically that average citizens voting has almost no effect on policy, but nothing about the spoiler effect per se afaict. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: Let's say, good steering public policy towards where the electorate wants it to be, even when the entrenched leadership of the major parties wants it to be someplace different. I'm wondering if this question has been studied in the political or economics literature.. It has, that’s what the Gilens & Page paper is about. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The G&P paper discusses how party leaders can want different policies than what the public wants. Sure, that difference is a given. What I want to know is whether the spoiler effect, specifically, does anything to either reinforce or counteract the power of those party leaders. Like in a slightly altered and oversimplified timeline, Bush runs on a 100% evil platform and Gore runs on 99% evil, expecting to win by a 1% margin. But he ignores Nader who eats that margin, thus Gore loses. If Gore were smarter, he could have run as 90% evil instead of 99%. Then he wins by enough to outcompete Bush and Nader put together. The spoiler effect has made public policy (or at least Gore's campaign platform) 9% less evil, i.e. closer to what the public wants.

Of course that's a pretty silly analysis but I have no real knowledge in this area. So again, I'm wondering whether poli sci or economics types have had anything to say about it. I figure they are more clueful than I am. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

November 16

Roger Waters' 1990 Berlin Wall concert

Where can I find a map or diagram showing the layout of Roger Waters' 1990 Berlin Wall concert stage and perimeter, overlaid on today's map of Potsdamer Platz? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought I saw this published in a magazine back in the early 1990s, maybe Spin or Rolling Stone? You can recreate it yourself using the exact blueprints of the stage design and then orienting the direction forward towards the stage and facing towards the audience. That should give you the relative location, but you'll have to spend a while on the maps apps to get it just right. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Andy, I was able to figure this out in five minutes using Google Earth. You can just create it yourself. The backside of the Reichstag building (without a dome in 1990) is just behind the stage and the Brandenburg Gate is just to the lower right in of the audience section. The dimensions of the stage itself are widely available. As for the total length of the audience section and its width, these are easy to estimate based on all the landmarks. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you must be joking, about the audience section. Every single reader be it simply of a mainstream magazines will have had to know that to ensure that the Brandenburg Gate, which had been damaged during the first Berlin-wide New Year's Eve celebration, was not completely destroyed, it was agreed that the stage would be set up south of the current Holocaust Memorial (tagesspiegel, via translated). Info ? Faked rumours ? --Askedonty (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how that changes what I said. It sounds to me like you are taking exception with the relative proximity of the audience to the Brandenburg Gate? That's a bit silly, since all I said was that the gate was to the lower right of the audience; I did not say how far away it was. However, to refute your assertion, many of the accounts of the event indicate that they could see the gate from the audience section. Also, how about you look at the links to pics I posted above? It sounds like you posted your comment before looking at the photos. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see the problem. It's a typo that you interpreted quite literally. My mistake. I fixed it up above. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not regret. I would have vastly preferred there were no pretext for them to manage people in consequence. --Askedonty (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the info originally requested: 52°31′00″N 13°22′34″E / 52.51667°N 13.37611°E / 52.51667; 13.37611 I should have posted this in the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt, they just wanted making me entirely crazy. Never mind, according to the article I've hit it's more to the South and to the East. Wouldn't your spot be in the trees according to the picture ? --Askedonty (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably, but every time I try to get a coordinate it gives me the wrong one. I think that's good enough for someone to add a layout in that general vicinity. The article you posted says the stage was 200 meters wide, which sounds just right. Andy can use that as a starting point to draw a perimeter. You can than refer to the photos up above for length and width. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

All that heat, and no light. The question was not "where did the concert occur", but "where can I find a map or diagram showing the layout...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What heat? The answer is: you can make it yourself. I apologize that you don’t like the answer. I was just about to upload the image I made, but given your attitude, I’ll just delete it now. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleting your original research is probably for the best. The Brandenburg Gate is visible in the above image, behind and to the right of the circular screen. The coordinates you have given are in what was West, not East, Berlin. My question remains unanswered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This may be the perimeter with "BÜHNE" marking the stage? Looks like maybe a cropped poster or program? fiveby(zero) 13:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted. Google translate says it's the reverse side of the concert ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Arts Colleges in US factors

Is there a website that shows a list of Liberal Arts colleges that offer a) History program, b) that offer football programs and c) shows which liberal arts college has the significant student population that are 1) Middle Eastern, 2) Afro-Caribbean, Sub Saharan African, and 3) Pacific Islanders ? Donmust90 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that all Liberal Arts colleges in the US offer a history program. People generally use US News and World Report College Rankings to search. Here is their list of Liberal Arts Colleges by the strength of their History programs. Their ethnicity data is behind a paywall. One could start with List of historically black colleges and universities. As for Football, smaller schools can be found in 2024 NAIA football rankings, 2024 NCAA Division II football rankings, and 2024 NCAA Division III football rankings. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

November 17

Rwanda immigration

UK ex-PM Sunak, and more recently incoming POTUS Trump, have floated the idea of deporting unwanted migrants to Rwanda. Rwanda doesn't sound like the worst place in the world (it's bad, but not at the absolute bottom), but doesn't Rwanda itself have anything to say about this? The idea is to just fly people to Rwanda and have them ask for asylum there, when (in Trump's case) the US and maybe multiple Central American countries have declined? What happens if Rwanda also says no? Has there been any mention in some kind of foreign aid to Rwanda to entice them to go along with the scheme? Basically, "why Rwanda" out of all other possible countries. The whole thing sounds bizarre. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

See Rwanda asylum plan for the British version. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The British sent unwanted citizens (not just illegal immigrants) to Australia for 80 years. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the Rwanda asylum plan article helped. The Australia scheme was in a different age and probably wouldn't work now ;). 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It could work, if America had a vast, sparsely populated chunk of land. As to sending them to Rwanda, it's well to keep in mind that Trump floats a lot of ideas, just what could charitably be called "thinking out loud", which have no real possibility of happening. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

we shall see 130.74.59.186 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Australia has its own similar third-country camp, the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and formerly had the Manus Regional Processing Centre too. CMD (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Bugs, there's lots of unpopulated land in the US, but if you let someone settle anywhere in the US then I think it would be difficult to stop them from leaving there. And people don't want to live in those places. Offers of housing to homeless US citizens in low population areas haven't been taken up much, since there are better services available in urban centers. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Trumpies aren't advocating voluntary resettlement. If they stay in America, they could be in something like the camps Japanese-Americans were locked in during WWII. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Internment camps could work well for what Republicans have in mind, but could have negative consequences for public health. Historically, internment camps are connected to the quick spread of "endemic contagious diseases" to the entire population of internees. The infection of nearby settlements is not out of the question. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

immigration detention (pending the resolution of asylum claims, for example),

as contrasted with the present 'catch-and-release' policy, or the granting of temporary protected status to the citizens of countries (or those who claim citizenship of certain countries) writ large, if enough of them enter the country illegally,

is meant to incentivize autorepatriation

i don't understand how someone can believe these outrageous lies, when we have already had a trump presidency

big promises - and ineffectual results, hampered by the civil service, who, as it turns out, cannot just be slashed overnight, and by more moderate advisors

as Vance predicted - the victory of trump will be very harmful to the mental health of a certain class of people, who actually believe, as Harris repeatedly insisted, that Trump is a 'fascist', will be a 'dictator' - and then conceded the election to him without incident

How will the American people resolve this cognitive dissonance ?

please settle down and accept that a new golden age is beginning 130.74.58.180 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Conceding an election to the actual winner and having a peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of respect for properly conducted democratic processes. Some live by this principle. Others ..... -- Jack of Oz 18:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November 18

By Today's Standards, What Kind of Socialist is Babeuf?

Babeuf supports the abolition of currency, but still wants to retain the existence of national borders, and I'm not sure if that would make him a Marxist or a non-Marxist socialist. I'm also not sure if Babeuf is closer to left-authoritarianism or left-libertarianism. Eougt59 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

He's pre-Marxist. Some would call all pre-Marxist socialists "utopian", and "Utopian socialism" appears in the infobox of his article... AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

He was regarded as the first revolutionary communist. He advocated for equality in society and the abolition of private property. However, in today’s standards, justice and equity are more important than equality. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Limits to property rights of non-living items

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that Billy O'Nair has acquired a Sunflowers painting, completely legally, being the highest bidder at an auction. At a whim, he decides to destroy it. Could Mr. O'Nair face legal consequences? More generally, are there jurisdictions that to some extent protect the preservation of highly-valued and possibly irreplaceable items, even when they have not specifically been awarded some official status such as "national treasure"? Or, conversely, are there jurisdictions for which it is foreseeable – such as based on jurisprudence – that such vile abuse of one's stewardship over one's property can be exercised with impunity?

(I am aware of the fact that "highly-valued" has a subjective aspect. But so do many other commonly accepted terms used in legal contexts, such as "reasonable care", "cruel and unusual", "undue hardship", so please do not get stuck on that.)  --Lambiam 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If the jurisdiction in question (ie: the state), considers the preservation of an item to be something desirable, then why has the state not taken control over it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes a nation will intervene in auctions to prevent a cultural item leaving the country. On the other hand, Steve Wynn put his elbow through Le Rêve (Picasso) without getting thrown into a UNESCO dungeon or anything. He even wanted money back for doing it.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Right to Destroy Artwork says that in the UK, the owner of the work can do with it as they please, citing the destruction of Graham Sutherland's Portrait of Winston Churchill by Churchill's widow or staff. In France there are droits d’auteur (author's rights) which allows the artist to object to the destruction of his work, although in the OP's example, any copyright would have expired long since. Similar rights exist in the USA under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

According to our article, the painting was destroyed within a year after its creation, some ten years before Churchill's death – although I do not see this early destruction date in the cited source.  --Lambiam 05:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The article "The Right to Destroy Artwork" states that The Visual Artists Rights Act includes the prohibition of destruction of artwork. A speaker in the House of Representatives is reported as having given the rationale that "society is the ultimate loser when works are modified or destroyed", which comes close to the essence of my question. However, the act only grants rights to the author, which only persist for their lifetime, so this stated rationale is not the intention of the law.  --Lambiam 06:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A citation leads me to Sprankling, John G (2014). "The Right to Destroy". The International Law of Property. Oxford. WP:Library doesn't seem to be working for me right now, but the abstract hints it might be useful. Of course many jurisdictions have limitations on the use of real property and some might possibly apply before something is "designated" historic. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the wplibrary link.

International law restricts the owner’s right to destroy artistic works by recognizing the artist’s right of integrity. The principal source of this limitation is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), which applies to all “literary and artistic works,” including architecture, paintings, photographs, and sculpture. Article 6bis sets forth the moral rights held by the creator of such a work, including the right of integrity. It provides that even after the transfer of all “economic rights” in the work, the creator retains the right “to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”...Most states have adopted domestic laws to protect this right.

— p. 298

Adeney, Elizabeth (2006). The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers: An International and Comparative Analysis. Oxford. lists the jurisdiction and statutes but no wplibrary access. Examples given are Martin v City of Indianapolis and Felseneiland mit Sirenen (1912) (Germany). However:

The right of integrity is not based on society’s interest in safeguarding artistic property from damage, but rather on protecting the honor and reputation of the creator...Even assuming that destruction is a form of “mutilation” or “other modification,” it does not violate the right of integrity unless it also prejudices the “honor or reputation” of the creator...In practice, the right of integrity is an unwieldy tool to prevent mutilation or destruction

— pp. 299-300

You might also be interested in the "Cultural Heritage Property" section, but the conclusion in 2014 was:

International law does not currently prohibit a private owner from destroying cultural heritage property. At this juncture, it can only be called an emerging trend, not a customary norm or a general principle of law. However, given the rate at which international cultural heritage law has expanded in recent decades, it seems likely that the momentum toward restricting such destruction will continue.

— p. 302

fiveby(zero) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea of heritage/listing systems is to limit what owners can do with their own real estate. See List of heritage registers. On a local level (and not listed in that article) properties in the UK may be in a Conservation area, which has a similar aim. -- Verbarson  _edits 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This case may be of interest, though in the end nothing came of it. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In the UK we have the concept of a Listed building, which restricts what changes can be made to certain houses and other constructions. A famous recent case was a pub called The Crooked House, which burned down in suspicious circumstances; the owners were ordered to rebuild it in its original form. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Spanish Consistory

The article section Fandango#Condemnation_and_liberation_by_Spanish_Church mentions a Consistory as a Spanish ecclesiastical authority, but the link is to Consistorium, which was a feature of the Roman empire. Do we have a more appropriate article to link to? Possibly Papal consistory or Ecclesiastical_court#Catholic_Church Rojomoke (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Rojomoke; from a quick Google and looking at sources like this and this, it seems that an ecclesiastical court is the intended meaning. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Diamond still a featured article?

Hi. I was wondering if Diamond is still a featured article? I doubt it since it was promoted a long time ago, but please let me know. Thank You. 2605:B100:14A:9E08:514F:EF1E:75E0:8084 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop asking. You can check this for yourself very easily. Featured articles have a gold star at the top right of the page and if you hover over it, it will say that the article is at featured status. The talk page will also explicitly say whether an article is at featured status or not. Matt Deres (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

With regard to such questions,

you will find at WP:FEATURED that featured article status persists (even if only honorary)

until an article is deleted or moved from its location (name) 130.74.58.180 (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November 19

Neirab steles and the minor god Shahar

Neirab steles. I was reading an inscriptions book and found reference to them. Our page says they were considered dubious from the start. I imagine they're not consequential enough to have enjoyed a revisitation by the academy, who knows. I think the wear is a bit uneven, the script might be too textbook. My question is about spelling. Is there anywhere else that spelled the god's name שהר? I think it's elsewhere more like שחר. I checked KTU 1.23 for spelling, they gave šḥr and one šhr which might have been a typo.

Secondarily, where's a better place than here to ask this kind of question? Is there one? Neither wordreference forums nor earlywritings forums seem to quite hit the mark for spellings on steles. Temerarius (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Funny coincidence, I just ran across a reference to שחר as an herb in Elephantine here note 603. First I've heard of it, and I always keep my ears attuned to this word and its soundalikes due to the canonical cruces.

Temerarius (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Siljanen, Esko (2017-03-31). "Judeans of Egypt in the Persian period (539-332 BCE) in light of the Aramaic Documents". Academia.edu. p. 160. Retrieved 2024-11-19.

In response to your second question, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East seems fairly active. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

November 20

Is it illegal for an American to pay prostitutes for sex

I have been reading CNN post here: https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-transition-news-11-19-24/index.html Where it says "The women said they were paid by the former congressman for sex on that trip, during which they also joined Gaetz at a Fox News studio while he filmed a TV appearance, their attorney Joel Leppard told CNN's Erin Burnett on "OutFront." Gaetz allegedly covered the women's travel costs as well, Leppard said."

But did Gaetz did anything wrong? I am not an US citizen and I don't know if it is illegal for an American to pay prostitutes for sex? Can someone explain. 2001:8003:429D:4100:6501:12DA:18A6:ED8 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a full article about it here. Omidinist (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If he paid for their travel from one state to another for the purpose of having sex with him, that could be a Mann Act violation. AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, before Trump, it wasn't necessary for an American politician to commit an actual crime for their career to be derailed by a sex scandal (see Wilbur Mills etc). That standard still applies to Democratic politicians (see Al Franken and Katie Hill), but Republicans now seem to be rewriting the rules as they go along. (Trump himself is a judicially-adjudicated -- though not criminally convicted -- sexual assaulter.) AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - 118th CONGRESS - RULE XXIII — CODE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT says:

1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That rule "is no more" and "has ceased to be". Or maybe it's just "pining for the fjords". Clarityfiend (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

the guy was not even censured,

although,

the core of the republican party is now composed of two-timers, philanderers, 'businessmen doing business',

illiterates, hucksters, snake oil salesmen (Kennedy, Oz, even Trump with his horse tranquilizer) and so on 130.74.58.180 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That Oz guy is no relation of mine, btw. -- Jack of Oz 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Prostitution is legal in dome rural counties of Nevada, but not in the larger cities. See Prostitution in Nevada. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This brings up something important about the legality. Prositution laws are state laws. In one state, it may be illegal to be paid for sex as well as to pay for sex. In another state, it is legal to pay for sex, but not be paid for it. In another state, it may be legal to be paid for sex, but not pay for it. As a state law, a state can allow counties within a state to make their own laws. Therefore, the question is not about the legality of Gaetz paying for sex in the United States, it is about the legality in the specific location it was (reportedly) paid for. But, as mentioned, being legal does not mean being ethical. Many legal actions are not ethical and can be used to censure a congress person. 64.53.18.252 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the question of what exactly is a prostitute. If a woman happens to accept money, does that qualify, or does it only qualify if it's her primary vocation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Women are so much more than just objects for men to screw. But men only have a few brain cells and can’t control themselves around women, and being sexualized is all women know so they let themselves get exploited and think it’s perfectly okay. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:807F:7FE4:7205:E54E (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I doubt many of them think it's "perfectly OK", but women are practical. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Women: More than objects to screw. Men: Nothing but objects who screw. You seem nice. And also blocked. --Golbez (talk) Golbez (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Tower of David - surviving crusader parts?

Are there any buildings, or parts of buildings, within the present Tower of David that date from the crusader period? And if there are, do we have any photos of them on Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Commons? Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November 21

Why is the fictosexuality article protected?

I wanted to make edits about the pain, suffering, and alienation that they go through everyday, but it’s protected and I can’t edit it.

And the teahouse is protected too, so this is the only place I can go. I don’t want to make an account. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:807F:7FE4:7205:E54E (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. win8x (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Because of your edits. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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