Revision as of 23:15, 19 September 2015 editSagittarian Milky Way (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,300 edits →is the social rot since the 60's real?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:51, 19 January 2025 edit undoKnightMove (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,253 edits →Official portraits of Donald Trump's first presidency: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
</noinclude> | |||
]</noinclude> | |||
= |
= January 5 = | ||
== How to |
== How to search for awkwardly named topics == | ||
On and off I've been looking for good sources for the concepts of ] and ] so as to improve the articles, but every time I try I only get one or two somewhat helpful results. Many of the results are not of material about the concepts of general union or trade union federations, but often about a ''specific'' instance of them, and as a result hard to gleen a lot from about the broader concept. Typcially this is because of issues such as many general unions being named as such (for example ]). I'm aware of the search trick that'd be something like {{tq|"general union" -Transport & General Workers' Union}} but I've found it largely cumbersome and ineffective, often seeming to filter out any potential material all together | |||
I'm working on ] and an interesting question has come up. First, please see . | |||
Thought I'd ask because I'd like to improve those articles, and this is an issue I'm sure would come up again for me otherwise on other articles ] (]) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Up til 1887, whenever there was a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor, the senate would quickly elect a president of the senate, who would act as lieutenant governor. In the list, these (Broderick, Quinn, de la Guerra, Irwin, White) are noted as 'acting'. | |||
:Do any of the articles listed at ] help? ] (]) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
But something changed between 1887 and 1895 (and possibly 1916; getting to that in a moment). On October 24, 1895, Spencer Millard died. The official list shows that on October 25, William Jeter became lieutenant governor. Not acting; full office. | |||
:If you search for , most hits will not be about a specific instance. --] 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 6 = | |||
Likewise, on February 28, 1916, John Eshleman died. William Stephens was ''nominated as his replacement'' by Governor Hiram Bingham. I have contemporary press saying just this. So by 1916, the process was no longer 'senate chooses a president who acts as lieutenant governor' and it had become 'governor nominates replacement to fill vacancy'. Furthermore, when Bingham resigns and Stephens becomes governor, the official list notes that the position became vacant - because, well, it was. There was no lieutenant governor. Which continues to show that there was no automatic or quick process as there used to be. | |||
== What does the ] consist of? == | |||
So my two questions are: first, does anyone have any idea when or why this process changed? Second, any idea who at the state I would email with this question? I thought about the office of lieutenant governor but that seems like it'd get lost in the crowd. --] (]) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:According to the ], article V, section 5(b): "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, or Attorney General, or on the State Board of Equalization, the Governor shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority of the membership of the Senate and a majority of the membership of the Assembly and who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term. In the event the nominee is neither confirmed nor refused confirmation by both the Senate and the Assembly within 90 days of the submission of the nomination, the nominee shall take office as if he or she had been confirmed by a majority of the Senate and Assembly; provided, that if such 90-day period ends during a recess of the Legislature, the period shall be extended until the sixth day following the day on which the Legislature reconvenes." While the original California Constitution may have been adopted in 1849, a new constitution was adopted in 1879. That would fit with the changes in L.G. nomination processes. --]] 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::It's possible one of the post 1879 amendments (of which there were many) dealt with the question of lieutenant governor vacancy. You might want to contact the California State Archives, I've found them helpful in the past. Or the Secretary of State of California. Or even the LG's office itself.--] (]) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
I asked about this at the article talk page and WikiProject Palestine, no response. Maybe it's not a question Misplaced Pages can answer, but I'm curious and it would improve the article. ] (]) 09:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Almost, and I'd actually forgotten about the new constitution, but that still leaves Stephen M. White, who is marked as ''acting'' from 1887 to 1891? I found a that states he was president pro tempore and became acting lt gov, which jives with how other people became acting lieutenant governor... but it doesn't jive with the 1879 constitution, which would have taken effect by then. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that "acting" on the official list is an error, as the California Blue Book from 1915 but does mention it for de la Guerra, et. al. I think I need to just email the secretary of state. --] (]) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
*It's acronym (or an abbreviation) for the four principles enumerated in the article. Like how the ] ''is'' the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::It's also helpful to remember that until the mid-20th century, the position of the vice president and analogous positions in state government was "no big deal" until and unless the #1 guy ceased to have a pulse, and it's still that way in a lot of states. The LG probably just presided over the Senate, and probably wasn't even in Sacramento the rest of the year unless he happened to live there. So the Senate president pro tem was acting lieutenant governor, but it likely was a distinction without a difference, since it was the same guy, doing the job he would have done anyway with no elected LG in place.--] (]) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:''Thawabit'' is short for ''alThawabit alWataniat alFilastinia'', the "Palestinian National Constants". ''Thawabit'' is the plural of '']'', "something permanent or invariable; constant". --] 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::] was once a powerful governor till his "friends" encouraged him to jump on the Wasn't all that bad, in ], but still a risky move. ] ] 20:08, ], ] (UTC) | |||
*:What I'm saying is that I'm not sure the article is correct. The sourcing is thin, reference are paywalled, offline, or dead, and Google isn't helpful. Other scholarly and activist sources give different versions of the Thawabet, e.g. adds the release of Palestinian prisoners, adds that Palestine is indivisible. The article says that these principles were formulated by the PLO in 1977 but doesn't link to a primary source (like the Bill of Rights). I don't know if you're a subject matter expert here, I'm not--actually trying to figure this out. ] (]) 13:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Most VPs up to Nixon and post the 12th Amendment were not presidential fodder. TR was an exception in that his ambition coincided with ]'s desire to find a nice way to make it clear to him he would not be renominated as governor. Combine that with a somewhat wacko pseudo-anarchist with a thing about McKinley (Czolgosz) and there you are.--] (]) 14:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
*::I was able to access the paywalled articles through the Misplaced Pages library, which adds a little more clarity. ] (]) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Also, TR didn't need very much convincing to run. He was told all he had to do to avoid being nominated (as he was protesting he didn't want to be) was tell the convention in Philadelphia he would not accept the nomination. He showed up instead dressed as Rough Rider, if I recall, "that's a candidate's hat".--] (]) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Speaking of advisors to the Governor of New York and people who were shot during early September musical celebrations and lingered about a week before making the assassination official, Apparently not an anarchist's bullet this time, just the gangs of New York (the ], not the ]). ] ] 21:52, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::::::<small>Just for posterity, I'm declaring the 2016 election early: Clinton and Cuomo, henceforth to be addressed as ]. Bet on it. ] ] 22:03, ], ] (UTC) </small> | |||
:According to , a fifth principle was added in 2012: "the objection to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people". However, I cannot find this in the --] 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= September 15 = | |||
:::I checked the Arabic Misplaced Pages article before I responded above, and they list the same four principles. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::That appears to be a translation of the English article, so this doesn't mean much to me. ] (]) 13:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I've poked around a little, and there doesn't appear to have been any change. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 13:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::The list in the book I linked to above is not the same as that in our article. The book does not include a "right to resistance", but demands the release by Israel of all Palestinian prisoners. It would be good to have a sourced, authoritative version, in particular the actual 1977 formulation by the PLO. Of course, nothing is so changeable as political principles, so one should expect non-trivial amendments made in the course of time. --] 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::That book is incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 21:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::How do you know? --] 00:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::The text does not explicitly say, "among others", but the use of {{lang|ar|بها بما في ذلك}} suggests that this list of four principles is not exhaustive. --] 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 7 = | |||
== US Politics question == | |||
== Is there such a thing as a joke type index? == | |||
Are the politics of ] and ] quite similar? Are Crist and Christie ideologically the same? --] (]) 06:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Has anyone produced an index of joke types and schemata (schemes?) along the lines of the ] for folk tales? More generally what kind of studies of the structure of jokes and humor are available? Has anyone come up with an A.I. that can generate new jokes? ] (]) 18:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: Also, because of their naming conventions, are they related biologically? --] (]) 07:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:For starters, there's ]. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Read the articles you linked. | |||
:AI generated jokes have been around for years. Just Google for it. They range from weird to meh. ]|] 10:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Regarding politics: Charlie Crist is currently a Democrat, and Chris Christie a Republican. They are, when American politics is viewed in isolation, ''opposites''. Charlie Crist supports President Obama's economic policies, Chris Christie disagrees with Obama on almost everything except the Federal government helping with disaster relief in New Jersey (Christie doesn't mind letting other states fend for themselves, however). | |||
:] made an attempt of sorts in his two joke collections, but it was kind of a half-assed approach: there are a bunch of indices printed on pages, but no key tying them together per se. His interest was in the core of the subject of the joke, so he might have said, for example, that ''these'' jokes were all based on unresolved Oedipal drives while ''those'' jokes were based on hatred of the mother (he was a capital "F" Freudian). The link Bugs shared is more about the formats of the jokes themselves, though some are also differentiated by their subject (albeit in a more superficial way than Legman attempted). ] (]) 21:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Regarding the name: No, Crist and Christie are different ]s, even if they're derived from "Christ." They might possibly share an ancestor within the past 2000 years, but it's still just as likely that I'm related to either of them. ] (]) 07:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::<small>Do we even what your family name is? ] ] 18:46, ], ] (UTC) </small> | |||
::::Charlie Crist only joined the Democratic Party in 2012 and was a Republican most of his career. As for differences, Crist is lean and slender, while Christie is . . . not. ] ] 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::No relation to to who ''made'' good cookies, either. ] ] 18:46, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:] has attempted to develop a theory of humour (as well as art and discovery), first in ''Insight and Outlook'' (1949) and slightly elaborated further in '']'' (1964). He did, however, not develop a typology of jokes. IMO ]'s ] presented in ''Semantic Mechanisms of Humor'' (1985) is essentially the same as Koestler's, but Raskin does not reference Koestler in the book. For an extensive overview of theories of humour see . --] 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: Thank you for the answer! I am from Slovenia so I do not understand USA politics too well. I love USA --] (]) 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
= January 8 = | |||
:::Enkratna kot prvi poljub! ] (]) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::"Unique as a first kiss"? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::::<small>For anyone who's wondering: ]. ] (]) 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
== ''The Nest'' magazine, UK, 1920s == | |||
== satellite uplink pornography == | |||
I have a copy of {{cite book | title = The Grocer's Window Book | year = 1922 | location = London | publisher = The Nest Magazine }}, "arranged by The Editor of ''The Nest''". The address of ''The Nest'' Magazine is given as 15 Arthur Street, London, EC4. It contains suggestions for arranging window displays in an attractive manner to attract customers into independent grocer's shops. I would be interested to know more about ''The Nest''. I suspect it may have something to do with Nestles Milk, as 1) the back cover is a full-page advertisement for Nestles and Ideal Milk, and there are several other adverts for Nestles products in the book, and 2) one of the suggested window displays involves spelling out "IDEAL" with tins of Ideal Milk. Thank you, ] (]) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
What corporation uplinks pornography to satellites and what site is used for this?] (]) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{Tq|Nest, 1922. M.—1st. 6d. Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co., 15 Arthur Street, E.c.4}} according to ''Willing's press guide and advertisers directory and handbook.'' I also found it in ''The Newspaper press directory and advertisers' guide,'' which merely confirms the address and the price of sixpence. Both of these were for the year 1922, which suggests to me that the magazine might not have survived into 1923. M signifies monthly, and 1st probably means published on the 1st of the month. ] ] 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Not sure who (if anyone) might do so today... but and discuss companies that did so back in the 1990s (and governmental reactions to them doing so). ] (]) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I think is a different one, but satellite TV is still one of its platforms. Part of ] ] 18:54, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== Historical U.S. population data by age (year 1968) == | |||
== Could a US state declare its independence? == | |||
In the year 1968, what percentage of the United States population was under 25 years old? I am wondering about this because I am watching the movie ], and want to know if a percentage claimed in the film was pulled out of a hat or was based in fact. ] (]) 04:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Without triggering a civil war, could a US state just become independent? --] (]) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:What percentage did they give? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::52% (it's on the movie poster). ] ] 16:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Tabel No. 6 in the (p. 8) gives, for 1960, {{val|80093}} Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of {{val|180007}} Kpeople, corresponding to 44.5%, and, for 1970, {{val|94095}} Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of {{val|204265}} Kpeople, corresponding to 46.1%. Interpolation results in an estimate of 45.8% for 1968. --] 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{small|Who are Kpeople? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
:::Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. ] (]) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::{{small|So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
:::::{{small|Or 1 kiloperson. — ]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
== Countries with greatest land mass == | |||
:I assume that by "just" you mean "without the consent of any other government". | |||
Can someone please fill in these blanks? Thank you. | |||
:Whether there would actually be a civil war is a matter of speculation, and we aren't supposed to speculate here. | |||
1. Currently, the USA ranks as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass. | |||
:However, it is true that nothing in the ] says the union is perpetual, and on the other hand nothing says that states have the right to leave. In 1861–65 the federal government fought the ] on the grounds that states did not have the right to leave, and this may be seen as establishing a precent. Also, the Constitution superseded the earlier ] between the 13 original states, which ''did'' describe the union as perpetual, and it may be argued that this was the intent even though it was no longer stated explicitly, and still applies. --] (]) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::A right to ] exists worldwide, including in treaties ratified by the United States. International circumstances also matter here. Other precedents exist, such as the ]. Declaring war on people becoming peacefully becoming independent would likely cause international anger against the US. It is possible the US would not recognise independence, but like areas such as ] or ] a state could become ''de facto'' independent. See also the ] and ] ] (]) 00:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't think the Scottish case is a good precedent for a more hostile case. Whatever the feelings and controversy, the government of the UK ultimately decided to allow such a referendum. They could have changed their mind after the result was yes, but even if they had, we have no idea how that would have played out. I don't think there can be any doubt that if the goverment (whatever part is needed, executive, legislature, whatever) agreed to allow the independence, there obviously could be independence. ] is a better example, since the central government in that case is clearly still fairly hostile to ]. We still don't really know how that's going to play out, presuming they get sufficient support from within Catalonia. But one difference with that case, is that Spain is bound by the agreements they signed as part of the EU and the Council of Europe, including the ] and binding judgements from the ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I think the "right to Self-determination" tends to be countered (officialy or otherwise) by the concept ]. Over-seas colonies that are only part of another country's territory because they were invaded tend to get a lot of sympathy when they want to break away (these days at least). Territories that more obviously physically part of another country, and have been for a long time, less so. Also, to be cynical, it could be that lots of countrys are sympathetic to decolonization movements because they don't have colonies of their own. Whereas lots of countries have internal seperatist movements, and fear that supporting other such movements would encourage their own separatists. ] (]) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*<small>One friend of mine argues that the phrase "a more perfect union" clearly and unambiguously implies an intent of perpetuity. I retort, it's likely no accident that the perpetual language of the Articles was omitted in 1787: irrevocability would make ratification a harder sell. —] (]) 02:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
2. If the USA were to "annex" or "acquire" both Canada and Greenland, the USA would rank as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass. | |||
:A unilateral declaration without triggering negative effects, up to and including a war? No. Any independence has to be carefully negotiated and multilateral. This applies to all countries, you simply don't get to leave without permission if you don't want a fight. Why? It's not just about being "owned" by the rest of the country, there are substantial rights issues and debt issues to be hashed out. For example, if Texas wants to secede, they have to negotiate things like citizenship rights, what happens to those who don't want to leave the U.S., what happens to sovereign debts held by the Texan government (and things the U.S. owes to Texas and Texans, like Social Security), what happens to U.S. military facilities and hardware in Texas, what currency Texas uses, where the border between the countries should be (especially important when dealing with Gulf oil fields), what agreements Mexico has with the U.S. that must now be renegotiated with an independent Texas, etc. This requires complex and careful bilateral negotiation. If they just declared independence, yes, a conflict, possibly a war, would follow, and logically so. | |||
:If a state can unilaterally declare independence ''without'' causing conflict, then the entity they were declaring independence from is a dead man walking anyway (e.g. the later stages of the collapse of the Soviet Union). --] (]) 01:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Thanks. ] (]) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: Legally no, see ]. ]] 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:See ], which gives a nuanced answer to your first question, and the answer to your second question is obvious from the data in the article.-] (]) 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:4 and 1. But the chance of Trump to annex Canada is close to zero. ] (]) 09:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Also the US somehow annexing Greenland is infinitely improbable. It's part of the European Union. ] (]) 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Trump's presidential term is four years and the process of discussion would take longer than that. ] (]) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::No it isn't. ] (]) 00:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes it is effectively: ] says "all citizens of the Realm of Denmark residing in Greenland (Greenlandic nationals) are EU citizens". ] (]) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::But Denmark is a NATO member. The US invading Greenland will trigger ]. --] 11:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Also, US is a member of NATO. The situation will be very complicated. ] (]) 11:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Please don't attribute any significance to the Orange Lunatic's weird brain processes. He makes outlandish statements all the time, for one and only one reason: to get attention. And most people fall for it, expertly led by the world's media. He has the same self-involved strategy that any pre-vocal child has: anything's fair game as long as I get the attention I crave. This is completely normal in small children. In presidents of the United States of America, not so much. -- ] </sup></span>]] 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The exact quote is: | |||
**Trump is, if nothing else, a master at manipulating the media. He can talk all he wants, but until he does something, it's just talk. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote>"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." '']'', 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1868), ''overruled on other grounds by ]'', 113 U.S. 476 (1885).</blockquote> | |||
**:All politicians are actors and good actors do what the role requires them to do whether they like it or not. What we need to do is see what they did, not what they preached. ] (]) 19:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:So the answer is no. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 09:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:What about non-state US territories, such as Puerto Rico or Guam, could they leave the Union without major ructions? ] (]) 07:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I'm only aware of one time a territory tried to up and leave. ]. ] (]) 09:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
= January 11 = | |||
::What the Supremes said in Texas v White could be undone by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as the Dred Scott ruling or Plessy v Ferguson are superseded. Similarly, typical wedding vows say "until death us do part" but a large portion of marriages in the US end in divorce before not too many years have gone by. If a state enters a union and no part of the ratification says it is permanent, then it is understandable they might think it can be abrogated or dissolved. The Texas v White terms were added to the contract after it was signed, and are therefore questionable. ] (]) 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
==JeJu AirFlight 2216 == | |||
:::The Philippines eventually got its independence, though, without a real ruckus in the US. I think a territory could, though it is surpassingly unlikely by any military means. Congress could pass legislation granting the territory its independence or the Senate could ratify a treaty with the new country after the president recognized it. Territories, especially ones unlikely to ever get statehood, such as Guam, aren't really considered in the Constitution, which led to some opposition to their acquisition and the debate about whether the Constitution follows the flag. So their departure doesn't strain the Union.--] (]) 11:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Is this the beginning of a new conspiracy theory? | |||
On 11 January, the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board stated that both the CVR and FDR had stopped recording four minutes before the aircraft crashed. | |||
Why would the flight recorder stop recording after the bird strike? Don't they have backup battery for flight recorders? | |||
::::There is no hard - and - fast rule. Singapore announced it would secede from Malaysia and did so. Biafra seceded from Nigeria and war followed. Southern Rhodesia declared independence and was sanctioned. Anguilla declared independence and was invaded. Western Australia toys with the idea of becoming independent from the Commonwealth. If they went ahead I don't see soldiers from Eastern States coming over to form an army of occupation. East Bengal secured independence from Pakistan after a fight. Spain seized Olivenca from Portugal in the eighteenth century - apart from that the border has been stable for a thousand years. Portugal wants it back. If the Olivencans decided to return there would probably be military action by Spain. The treaty that set up the European Monetary Union has no provision for states to secede, however in practice, if a country doesn't follow the rules it is likely to be ejected. ] (]) 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
] (]) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? ] (]) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
::::] are not really ''in the Union'', they are ''under the jurisdiction of the Union''. That's an important distinction: an imperfect analogy may be the difference between a company's ''employee'', and an ''independent contractor'' hired by the company. There are legal distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of members of an group, and those who merely have a partial, temporary, or ephemeral association with it. --]] 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. ] (]) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= September 16 = | |||
It says on wikipedia that "With the reduced power requirements of solid-state recorders, it is now practical to incorporate a battery in the units, so that recording can continue until flight termination, even if the aircraft electrical system fails. ". So how can the CVR stop recording the pilot's voices??? ] (]) 10:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Monday's leadership spill == | |||
:The aircraft type was launched in 1994, this particular aircraft entered service in 2009. It may have had an older type of recorder. | |||
I just discovered ], and the situation left me somewhat confused on the formal procedure. When you lose a leadership spill, do you resign, or do you advise the G-G to replace you with the new guy, or is there a confidence vote in the House of Representatives, or does something else happen? I'm not seeing anything in this article, Abbott's article, or ]. I was confused to discover that the Liberal senators joined in the vote (apparently because they're among the most prominent members of the party, so they play a part in internal party matters?) and also confused that the Nationals don't even get mentioned; how is this a Liberal matter, and not a Coalition matter? ] (]) 13:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I too am puzzled by some aspects of this crash, but I'm sure the investigators will enlighten us when they're ready. ] (]) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US . I doubt anyone else required them before. So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. .) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest . Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like . The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters "{{tqi|a former transport ministry accident investigator, said the discovery of the missing data from the budget airline's Boeing 737-800 jet's crucial final minutes was surprising and suggests all power, including backup, may have been cut, which is rare.}}" Note that the RIPS only have to work for 10 minutes, I think the timeline of this suggests power should not have been lost for 10 minutes at the 4 minutes point, but it's not something I looked in to. BTW, I think this is sort of explained in some of the other sources but if not see . Having a RIPS is a little more complicated than just having a box with a battery. There's no point recording nothing so you need to ensure that the RIPS is connected to/powering mics in the cabin. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The aircraft made 13 flights in 48 hours, meaning less than 3.7 hours per flight. Is it too much? Its last flight from Bangkok to Korea had a normal flight time for slightly more than 5 hours. Does it mean the pilots had to rush through preflight checks? ] (]) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:With this kind of schedule, it is questionable that the aircraft is well-maintained. ] (]) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The OP seems to be obsessed with creating a new conspiracy theory out of very little real information, and even less expertise. Perhaps a new hobby is in order? ] (]) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Just for info, the article is ]. This question has not yet been raised at the Talk page there. Thanks. ] (]) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
First of all, when Tony Abott is challenge as the leader of the Liberal Party, he has to prove that he has the support of the MPs in his party. If he loses the support, he is no longer the leader of the Party. He does not have to resign. He is automatically no longer the leader. ] (]) 15:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:...nor should it be, per ]. ]|] 10:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The prime minister is the leader of the political party that wins the election. If the leader of the party changes, then the G-G needs to be informed by the outgoing leader. And the new leader needs to under go the swearing in ceremony. ] (]) 15:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. ] (]) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in ], not ] speculated about by/in the Misplaced Pages article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there ''are'' Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Quite. ] (]) 10:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Have now posed the question there. ] (]) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Fortune 500 == | |||
:(EC) Despite the confusing wording in our article, the spill was for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia and would follow the rules of the Liberal Party as to who gets to vote. Because the coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives, and the ] is that the Liberal Party leader will be PM, the winner will eventually become PM, but that is still a seperate matter from the leadership spill itself. <p>I don't know much about the coalition agreement with the Nationals beyond what the article says, but it's fairly unlikely it allows them to have an official say in the leadership of the Liberal Party. They do get the Deputy Prime Minister after all, and I fairly doubt they would be interested in the Liberal Party having a say in their leadership. If they aren't happy with the leadership, they could always break the coalition agreement. <p>In terms of becoming PM Australians will correct me if I'm wrong but having lost the leadership of the Liberal Party, Abbott resigned (handed in his commission) as PM as was expected of him . The ] then appointed the (new) leader of Liberal Party as the new ] as was expected by convention given that the Coalition had the majority in the House of Representatives and the Coalition expected the leader of the Liberal Party to be the Prime Minister. If Abbott had refused to resign, then things would have been a bit messier, I suspect it's likely a confidence motion would have been called in parliament. Realisticly that was never going to happen. <p>] (]) 15:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Is there any site where one can view complete Fortune 500 and Fortune Global 500 for free? These indices are so widely used so is there such a site? --] (]) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: I agree with all that. One thing that surprised me, though, was that the Coalition agreement had to be renegotiated between the Nationals leader ] and the new Liberal leader, ], and certain new concessions were demanded by the Nats which had not been part of the agreement with Tony Abbott. I always believed the Coalition agreement was between the 2 parties for the life of the parliament, regardless of who their respective leaders happened to be at any point in time. The last time this was an issue was in 1967, when Liberal PM ] drowned, and the Country Party (as the Nationals were then called) under ] immediately announced that they would leave the Coalition if the Liberals elected Holt's presumed successor ] (whom McEwen despised, not least because he believed he was a homosexual). So they elected ] instead. That was all about acceptance (or not) of the leader personally, not about any matters of policy. I don't remember the agreement having to be renegotiated when Gorton resigned in mid-term in 1971, but that's a while back. The Abbott/Turnbull turnover is the first time since then that a sitting Liberal PM has left the job (although there were plenty of such changes at the top when they were in Opposition). -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ ] (]) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: Conversely, the Nationals changed leaders twice during ]'s PM-ship, giving him 3 Deputy PMs (], ] and ]), and again I don't remember any renegotiation going on when the Nats leader changed each time. Warren Truss is a sort of bland Mr Nobody to most Australians, but he knows political opportunities when he sees them. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 21:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
= January 12 = | |||
:::The reason I asked about the Nationals' input: what if they had continued supporting Abbott? I'm just imagining the National representatives uniting with the Abbott-favoring Liberal representatives, choosing him to remain as leader of the Coalition. Or is this something that wouldn't happen, because it would violate longstanding norms? I'm familiar enough with the average Westminster system to understand its normal workings, but the idea of a party supporting a government (long-term, as opposed to temporary coalitions as seen all the time in countries like Israel) without having a voice in picking its membership is simply weird to my mind. ] (]) 22:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Questions == | |||
:::: The bottom line is that the issue was the leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party, and nobody who was not a member of that select club, not even their Coalition partner the Nationals, had any say in the matter. All the Nationals could do was to seek to reaffirm (= renegotiate) the coalition agreement once the Libs had made their choice. But, as I say, even that seems to be a new development. And such discussions most certainly could not have extended to keeping Abbott as the leader of the Coalition despite not being the leader of either party. What happened in Queensland in April 2011 - when ] became Leader of the Liberal Party despite the fact that he was not at that stage, and had never been, a member of parliament (he was first elected in March 2012) - was a crazy scenario that led to the party's defeat in 2015 and Newman ignominiously losing his own seat, and was an experiment unlikely ever to be repeated. That's the closest parallel I can think of to what you're alluding to. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 23:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
# Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU? | |||
= September 17 = | |||
# Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries? | |||
# Why is Russia not in NATO? | |||
# If all African countries are in AU, why are all European countries not in EU? | |||
# Why Faroe Islands and Greenland have not become sovereign states yet? | |||
# Can non-sovereign states or country subdivisions have embassies? | |||
# Why French overseas departments have not become sovereign states yet? --] (]) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#:I see that ] offer a course on . Had you considered that, perhaps? ] (]) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#:# See: ] | |||
#:# Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not meet the criteria for joining the European Union | |||
#:# If you google "Nato's primary purpose", you will know. | |||
#:# The two do not have logical connection. | |||
#:# They are too small to be an independent country | |||
#:# Non-sovereign states or countries, for example Wales and Scotland, are countries within a sovereign state. They don't have embassies of their own. | |||
#:# Unlike the British territories, all people living in the French territories are fully enfranchised and can vote for the French national assembly, so they are fully represented in the French democracy and do not have the need of becoming a sovereign state. | |||
#:] (]) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#::Some of the French overseas territories are ] with a degree of autonomy from Paris, whilst ] has a special status and may be edging towards full independence. I imagine all the overseas territories contain at least some people who would prefer to be fully independent, there's a difference between sending a few representatives to the government of a larger state and having your own sovereign state (I offer no opinion on the merits/drawbacks of such an aspiration). ] (]) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Too many questions all at once… but to address the first with an overly simplistic answer: The British preferred the Pound. It had been one of the strongest currencies in the world for generations, and keeping it was a matter of national pride. ] (]) 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::1. See ] | |||
== Chicago Style Tool == | |||
::2. {{xt|"... geopolitical considerations, such as preserving Russia’s status as a former imperial power, is more important to Moscow than economic issues when it comes to foreign policy. Russia’s sees relations with the EU to be much less important than bilateral relations with the EU member-states that carry the most political weight, namely France, Germany and, to some extent, Britain. Russia thus clearly emphasizes politics over economics. While NATO enlargement was seen by Moscow to be a very important event, Russia barely noticed the enlargement of the EU on May 1."}} . See also ]. | |||
::3. See ]. | |||
::] (]) 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::(5) They're too small? Somebody tell ], ] (21 km<sup>2</sup>) and ] (26 km<sup>2</sup>) they have no business being nations. ] (]) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::More like economically too weak. From our article on the ]: “In 2011, 13% of the Faroe Islands' national income consists of economic aid from ], corresponding to roughly 5% of GDP.” They're net recipients of taxpayer money; no way they could have built their largely underground road network themselves. The Faroe Islands have no significant agriculture, little industry or tourism. The only thing they really have is fishing rights in their huge exclusive economic zone, but an economy entirely dependent on fishing rights is vulnerable. They could try as a tax haven, but competing against the Channel Islands or Cayman Islands won't be easy. Greenland has large natural resources, including ], and developing mining would generate income, but also pollute the environment and destroy Greenlandic culture. ] (]) 10:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::First, because of religious reason, Vatican City is very unique. Second, although it is technically an independent state, according to Article 22 of the Lateran Treaty, people sentenced to imprisonment by Vatican City serve their time in prison in Italy. Third, Saint Peter's Square is actually patrolled by Italian police. Its security and defence heavily relies on Italy. Its situation is similar to Liechtenstein whose security and defence are heavily relies on Austria and Switzerland and its sentenced persons are serving their time in Austria. The key common point of these small states are they’re inland states surrounded by rich and friendly countries that they can trust. ] (]) 10:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::As for Nauru and Tuvalu, the two states located near the equator, they are quite far away from other countries that would pose a threat to their national security. The temperature, the reef islands and the atolls around them provide them with ample natural resources. However, even gifted with natural resources, these small pacific ocean islands are facing problems of low living standard, low GDP per capital and low HDI. | |||
:::Back to the case of Faroe Islands and Greenland, people of these two places enjoy a relatively higher living standard and higher HDI than previously mentioned island states because they have the edge of being able to save a lot of administrative and security costs. If one day Faroe Islands and Greenland became independent, they will face other problems of independence, including problems similar to the fishing conflicts between UK and Norway. The future could be troublesome if Faroe Islands and Greenland ever sought independence from Demark. ] (]) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Someone's bored again and expecting us to entertain them. ] (]) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:] can do that for most any Web site, including Google Books, and output most any citation style - and all variations of Chicago 15 & 16th editions - you'll ever need. Firefox extension or standalone. No online tool gets details so precise for complex cites or offers you such control. Hit Google Books, press one Z to capture all metadata, right click and select Create Bibliography from item, choose Citation style and output (Note/Bibliography) to copy to clipboard (all of one click), done. Pasted output below. Integrated with Microsoft Office or Libre Office for cite while you write capability. Plus, full-fledge reference management software living in your browser always ready, free sync account for online access while away from your PC. Zotfile add on takes it to the next, stellar, level for document management, if you download PDFs and want auto-renaming. ''Of course'' it's open source. | |||
::40bus often asks mass questions like this on the Language Ref. Desk. Now you get to enjoy him on the Humanities Ref. Desk. The answers to 2, 3, and 4 are somewhat the same -- the African Union is basically symbolic, while the EU and NATO are highly-substantive, and don't admit nations for reasons of geographic symmetry only. ] (]) 06:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: Compare other tools to output below for Chicago 16th ed. citation style for: https://books.google.com/books?id=lUZnBgAAQBAJ | |||
= January 13 = | |||
:Full note, Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press, 2015. | |||
:Full note, Note: Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research (Oxford University Press, 2015). | |||
:Author-date - Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. 2015. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press. | |||
:Author-date - Citations: (Mann 2015) -- ] (]) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== reference behind ] == | |||
::] is a bit clunky on Misplaced Pages citation templates, needs hand edit, but still saves plenty of time. One click to capture Google Book (Amazon, Library of Congress, WorldCat, whatever book site you like) in Zotero, right click on item, select Export Item, OK for your set default of Misplaced Pages Citation Template, Save. 5 clicks. Open, copy, paste. Here it is in raw form from link above: | |||
::Misplaced Pages Citation Template exported from Zotero: | |||
::<code><nowiki>{{Cite book| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 9780199931064| last = Mann| first = Thomas| title = The Oxford Guide to Library Research| date = 2015-03-27}}</nowiki></code> | |||
::Delete MM-DD extraneous metadata Google Books tosses in, then all good. | |||
::{{Cite book| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 9780199931064| last = Mann| first = Thomas| title = The Oxford Guide to Library Research| date = 2015}} -- ] (]) 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
from Season 4 Episode 12 of the West Wing: | |||
== "if you want to be rich you need to go to hollywood and become an actor..." == | |||
They all begin to exit. | |||
This stupid sentence is general said in Germany, but I found out that Sha Rukh Khan is the 2. most rich actor of the world with 0,6 billion dollars. Could you explain how Sha Rukh Khan could become so rich without hollywood? Are in india so many rich Regisseurs which are booking Sha Rukh? --] (]) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
BARTLET | |||
:It is interesting. I can find no shortage of media sites parading that figure around, but no one explains how it was arrived at. Several groups report this is a result of their own research, but then don't explain what they actually did to get the information. Not anywhere that I could find through five minutes of googling, anyway. But curious nonetheless, considering that nearly all movies Sha Rukh Khan has been in are very low budget by American standards ($5-20 million). Though we don't know what kind of royalty deals he has made with the producers. His films typically bring in around $60 million, so if he has collected a decent cut of the profits from his ~50 films, he could easily be as rich as he is described. ] (]) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Maxine. | |||
::You can bet that the majority of the people here will have no idea who this person is. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::] - if anyone is confused. ] (]) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
C.J. | |||
== Which website will be most suitable for My Journey? == | |||
That's you. | |||
JOSH | |||
In this season I would like to visit India. So I need to book air ticket. I visited a website where I compared prices of ticket from . But I am not sure that should I book ticket or not from this website. Please suggest. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I know. | |||
Leo, C.J., and Toby leave. | |||
:Misplaced Pages is not a travel agency. Wishing you a safe journey to our page on ]s. -- ] (]) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Which travel websites you should use is not something Misplaced Pages can or should give advice about (we have to maintain a ]). Sample many, and choose the one ''you'' like best. ] (]) 18:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
What is Maxine referencing here? From the context of the scene, it's probably a historical figure related to politics or the arts. I went over the list in ] but couldn't find anything I recognize. ] (]) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Historical bondage == | |||
(I asked on the Humanities desk instead of the Entertainment desk because I'm guessing the reference isn't a pop-culture one but a historical one.) ] (]) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: seems to indicate in a parenthetical comment that galley slaves in the Ottoman Empire were almost exclusively male. No idea on other places and times, though.--]] 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Seems unlikely, inasmuch as rowing places a premium on upper body strength, so females would be at a serious disadvantage. The women would be put to other uses. ] (]) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Also, many males + few females = Trouble with a capital T. ] (]) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:According to fandom.com: "When the President calls Josh Maxine, he refers to Hallmark Cards character Maxine, known for demanding people to agree with her." . --] (]) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The French used prisoners as galley slaves until 1748, but again, it seems to have been men only. ] (]) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Based on the cards I see , Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness. --] 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::More background on Maxine here: https://agefriendlyvibes.com/blogs/news/maxine-the-birth-of-the-ageist-birthday-card ] (]) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 14 = | |||
== Why in divorce cases women are more likely to get custody? == | |||
== Ministerial confirmation hearings == | |||
Why are women more likely to win custody? What is it based on? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Because they are the ones who gave birth to the child in the first place. Other things being equal, the bond between a child and their mother is stronger than the bond between a child and their father. The courts respect this. --] 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
: But if the father is the sole breadwinner and property owner, wouldn't he be able to support the kids better by providing them with a home instead of living with the mother who may be homeless or return to the house of her parents? ] (]) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Your statement about ] after divorce isn't universally true and talking about averages when there are vast differences in implementations is pointless and confusing . <p>But even where it is true, the reasons will depend on jurisdiction. In some places, what VW says may be a significant consideration. In others, the courts will care far more about other things, like who was the child's primary caregiver before the seperation. For various reasons, this is most commonly the mother, but in cases of a working mother and stay at home father, it generally ends up being the father. <p>Anyway, these sources are primarily intended to establish the primary caregiver issue, I would treat any other conclusions or statements of fact with caution but see e.g. <p>Note also, the modern standard in places you're probably referring to is often "the best interests of the child" or something similar. The implementation of this varies (and may or may not be well defined in law). Whatever outcome there tends to be a lot of controversy about whether it's really in the best interests of the child. <p>BTW, in quite a few jurisdictions, both parents are required to contribute financially to the upbringing of the child if they can afford it, no matter what degree of custody they have. In cases of unequal custody, this may entail the parent with less custody paying something to the parent with greater custody to help ]. <p>And for various reasons after a seperation or divorce, such as if one spouse limited their career advancement as part of the marriage, the other spouse may also be required to provide ] seperate from any contributions to the raising of the child. <p>While these details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the scenario you outlined about the mother being homeless is generally not supposed to happen if the father is of sufficient means. (In many of these, in most cases it's generally not supposed to happen point blank, no matter the means of the parents.) <p>As to living with the (grand)parents, this may not be considered harmful. Particularly since whoever gets custody someone is going to have to look after the children. And if there is an increase in working hours for one or both parents plus a reduction in parent-child time (which may arise whatever the custody arrangements ''edit: and regardless of any change in working hours due to reduction in time spent with both parents simultaneously''), time spent with the grandparents may be considered beneficial. In some places, for various reasons such arrangements aren't uncommon even if the parents aren't divorced. <p>] (]) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
*While men do not commit 100% of domestic violence in the world, they do commit the majority of it, see for example , which notes that in every major statistical measure of domestic violence, men commit more of it than women. Being beaten by one's husband is a common grounds for divorce: notes that physical and emotional abuse are a very common cause of divorce in America. Abusive spouses are less likely to be granted custody of children, for what I hope are obvious reasons. So, it isn't a great leap of faith to understand that more men are abusive --> less men are granted custody in divorce. This may not be the sole factor, but it is a reasonable one. That conclusion is positively confirmed , where it notes that domestic violence is the ''main reason'' why one partner is granted sole custody of the children. --]] 02:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Is there any parliamentary democracy in which all a prime minister's choices for minister are questioned by members of parliament before they take office and need to be accepted by them in order to take office? ] (]) 18:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Philome Obin == | |||
:No individual grilling sessions, but ] the Knesset has to approve the prime minister's choices. ] ] 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
This is Philip Robert Obin again. Can you tell me how my grandfather, Philome Obin, became Captain of the Haitian Army? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:If you are the grandson of <u>''']'''</u> you are probably closer to the source of that information than any of the contributors here. Our article says: "For example, it was not until after his death that his children discovered in his safe some documentation which stated that he was a commissioned officer—a Captain in the Haitian army before the American Occupation." If this unsourced statement is correct, those documents could still be in the posession of some of your relatives. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Is an occupied regime a country? == | |||
== "Gertrude Svensen" in '']'' == | |||
If a regime A of a country is mostly occupied by regime B, and regime B is later recognized as the representative of the country, while regime A, unable to reclaim control of the entire country, claims that it is itself a country and independent of regime B. the questio"n arises: is regim"e A a country? ] (]) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The correct name for the person called "Gertrude Svensen" in ] is actually "]", as the article of her say, and the (Swedish) references also calls her. Gertrud Svensdotter was from Sweden, and her last name ''Svensdotter'' was a ] meaning "daughter of Sven": the ending word "dotter" in the name meaning "daughter". I am from Sweden myself, and no references in her home country, were her story is well known, ever refers to her as "Gertrude Svensen" - which would also have been strange, as the name "Svensen" is also a patronymic meaning "son of Sven". Further more, "Svensen" is also a Danish patronymic rather than a Swedish, which would have been "Svensson". Her first name also has the wrong spelling, as the Swedish spelling of Gertrude is Gertrud without the e at the end, but that is a smaller matter. | |||
:Are you talking about a ]? ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
My question is: is the name actually wrong in the art exhibition '']'' itself (which means that it would have to continue being wrong in the article), or is it simply wrongly spelled only in the article (and can be corrected)? Thanks! --] (]) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:This is based on the definition of a country. Anyone in any place can claim to be a country. There is no legal paperwork required. There is no high court that you go to and make your claim to be a country. The first step is simply making the claim, "We are an independent country." Then, other countries have to recognize that claim. It is not 100%. There are claims where a group claims to be a country but nobody else recognizes it as a country, such as South Ossetia. There are others that have been recognized in the past, but not currently, such as Taiwan. There are some that are recognized by only a few countries, such as Abkhazia. From another point of view. There are organizations that claim they have the authority to declare what is and is not a country, such as the United Nations. But, others do not accept their authority on the matter. In the end, there is no way clearly define what is a country, which makes this question difficult to answer. ] (]) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:<small>Added a line break better to separate your question from the context statement. ] (]) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
::] {{tq|is a country,}} although I suppose the fact that this ''has'' multiple citations says something. (Mainly, it says that the CCP would like to edit it out.) ] ] 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The Misplaced Pages article reflects an error. See the , which gives her name as "Gertrude Svensen" and makes another spelling error in its description, "Gertrude Svenson". ] (]) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Instead of trying to draft an abstract, do you have a concrete example you're thinking of? --] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:One should always maintain a distinguish between countries and the regimes administering them. Syria was not the Assad regime – Assad is gone but Syria remains. Likewise, Russia is not the Putin regime. Identifying the two can only lead to confusion. | |||
:What makes a geographic region (or collection of regions) a country – more precisely, a ]? There are countless ]s, several of which are sovereignty disputes; for example, the regimes of ] and ] claim each other's territory and deny each other's sovereignty over the territory the other effectively administers. Each has its own list of supporters of their claims. Likewise, the ] and ] claim each other's territory. By the definition of '']'', there is no agreement in such cases on the validity of such claims. The answer to the question whether the contested region in a sovereignty dispute is a country depends on which side of the dispute one chooses, which has more to do with ] than with any objectively applicable criteria. --] 10:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::At least in part, it depends on other countries agreeing that a particular area is actually a nation and that the government that claims to represnt it has some legitimacy; see our ] article. For many nations, recognition would depend on whether the ] had been adhered to. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I see. Thank you for the explanation and link. Yes, the museum indeed gives several errors: not only of her first and last name, but also of her year of life and death, which is 1656-1675, and the year of the accusation 1667/1668 rather than 1668/1669. But, as the exhibit was founded in 1979, if I understood it correctly, I suppose it was easy with such errors, as the story may not be so well known outside of Sweden. If the error is the same in the exhibition, than of course it must stay here as well - though it would be good to have the error pointed out some way, I suppose. This reminds one of one great thing with the internet!--] (]) 00:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
One of the peculiarities of the Cold War is the emergence of competing governments in multiple countries, along a more or less similar pattern. We had West and East Germany, South and North Vietnam, South and North Korea and ROC and PRC. The only thing that separates the Chinese case from the onset is that there was no usage of the terms West China (for PRC) and East China (for ROC), since the ROC control was limited to a single province (and a few minor islands). Over time the ROC lost most of its diplomatic recognition, and the notion that the government in Taipei represented all of China (including claims on Mongolia etc) became anachronistic. Gradually over decades, in the West it became increasingly common to think of Taiwan as a separate country as it looked separate from mainland China on maps and whatnot. Somewhat later within Taiwan itself political movements wanted (in varying degrees) to abandon the ROC and declare the island as a sovereign state of its own grew. Taiwanese nationalism is essentially a sort of separatism from the ROC ruling Taiwan. | |||
In all of the Cold War divided countries, there have been processes were the political separation eventually becomes a cultural and social separation as well. At the onset everyone agrees that the separation is only a political-institutional technicality, but over time societies diverge. Even 35 years after the end of the GDR, East Germans still feel East German. In Korea and China there is linguistic divergence, as spelling reforms and orthography have developed differently under different political regimes. --] (]) 10:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The difference with Taiwan vs. the other Cold War governments is that pre-ROC Taiwan was under Japanese rule. Whereas other governments split existing countries, Taiwan was arguably a separate entity already. ] (]) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::She doesn't appear to be the only one among the 999 women on the Heritage Floor whose name got misspelled: ] is spelled , e.g.. See also by ] (pinging her, as she might have something to add). ---] ] 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:For the UK, the long-standing diplomatic position is that they recognise governments not countries, which has often avoided such complicated tangles. ] (]) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Photos in a novel == | |||
I'm reading a certain novel. In the middle of Chapter II (written in the first person), there are three pages containing photos of the hotel the author is writing about. Flicking through I find another photo towards the end of the book. I think: this must be a memoir, not a novel. I check, but every source says it's a novel. | |||
= September 18 = | |||
I've never encountered anything like this before: photos in a novel. Sure, novels are often based on real places, real people etc, but they use words to tell the story. Photos are the stuff of non-fiction. Are there any precedents for this? -- ] </sup></span>]] 20:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Tetragrammaton transliteration variants == | |||
If anyone's interested, the novel is '']'' by ]. -- ] </sup></span>]] 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Both "YHWH" and "YHVH" are established transliterations for יהוה, but is there typically any significance to the use of one or the other in a specifically Jewish context? , a Karaite source, uses ''both'' transliterations; I'm not sure if it's a typo or if we should expect that they're indicating something by using both. ] (]) 00:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Would ] be a better locale for this query? --]] 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
There's some information on this in ]. See also ]. FWIW, traditional Jews transliterate the word as "Adonai". --] (]) 11:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:FWIW, they don't. They ] the word as "Adonai". Actually, translate isn't the correct term, as "adonai" is still Hebrew. Since Adonai is the substitution for the actual word printed, which is done to avoid saying the word, strictly speaking the closest English word for that process is probably ]. They ] the ] as YHWH or YHVH, transliteration is the process of rewriting a word from one script into another script. For example, the capital of Russia is Москва́, which is ''transliterated'' into the ] as "Moskva", but ''translated'' into English as "Moscow". --]] 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:IIRC ''Loving Monsters'' by James Hamilton-Patterson has some photos in it. ] (]) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Adonai means "Lord", which is why at least some Bible translations will say "Lord God" where the translators ran into YHWH superscripted with the vowel points of Adonai. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::And some readers, who didn't realise the superscript represented a ''different'' word rather that being a pronunciation guide, came up with the totally un-historical YaHoVaiH = "]" (although there isn't complete scholarly consensus about this). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, especially (probably) by those who use "Jehovah" a lot. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Around here, Jews transliterate the word as "G-d". At school we learned that the transliteration was originally "Jehovah" but scholars later decided that "Yahweh" was more accurate. We were also told to say our school motto ''Labor vincit omnia'' as "Labor '''winkit''' omnia" because they had decided the same thing about the letter "v" in Latin. That sounds reasonable - "v" is not a separate letter, stonemasons just found it easier to carve "u" that way. | |||
::::The old word for "God" was ''eli'', plural ''elohim'', although our article says this is actually a singular form. Aramaic - speaking Christians are persecuted by Muslims, one ground for complaint being their description of God as "Allah". The allegation is that they have appropriated a Muslim term, although of course they were using it long before the foundation of Islam. ] (]) 13:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, they ''''']''''' the word as G_d. (I wouldn't start speaking in loud tones if people listened the first time). To make it clear, you're using the word ''''']''''' wrong. Transliterate means "take the word from the original language and put it in a new writing system" (literate...literary...literature...''writing''). Translate means "take the word and give its equivalent meaning in a completely different language". I'm not saying that Jewish people don't use words like Adonai and G_d in speech and writing. What I am saying is that rendering יהוה as "Adonai" or "G_d" is '''''not''''' transliteration. In the first case, it's a form of ] (that is, word replacement to avoid offensiveness) and in the second case it's a form of ] (that is, using equivalent terms in a different language, since G_d is not Hebrew). YHWH is the ] of the ], because that renders the original Hebrew term into the ] while preserving it in the original Hebrew language. --]] 14:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:'']'' by ], 1892. ] (]) 21:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Which Website Provides me the Cheapest Air Ticket? == | |||
:I can quickly go to the fiction stacks and pull a dozen books with photos in them. It is common that the photos are in the middle of the book because of the way the book pressing works. ] (]) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Really? I would like to hear some examples of what you're referring to. Like Jack, I think the appearance of photos in (adult) fiction is rare. The novels of ] are one notable exception. --] 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: in a blog "with an emphasis on W.G. Sebald and literature with embedded photographs" may be of interest. ] (]) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::: Fascinating. Thanks. So, this is actually a thing. Someone should add it to our ]. -- ] </sup></span>]] 18:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::The word "adult" did not come up until you just decided to use it there. I stated that there are many fiction paperback books with a middle section of graphics, which commonly include images of photographs. You replied that that is rare in adult fiction. ] (]) 00:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Do You know that Which website can easily and effective guide to purchase the Cheapest Air Ticket? I have found some effective websites but quite confuse to select the most effective one. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:31, 18 September 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
::::]s, you mean? ] ] 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:There is no single website guaranteed to have the lowest price for any one particular flight. You'll have to shop around. You can also try ]s which aggregate and report published rates from several other websites. You'll still need to check several, however, as there are some major discount airlines, notably ] (the largest discount air carrier in the world, I might add) does not sell its tickets anywhere except it's own website or by calling the company directly. Besides the fact that we don't know where you live or where you are flying to, AND besides the fact that a website guaranteed to have the lowest fare across all flights does not exist, recommending particular businesses is outside the scope of this desk. The best I can recommend is ] as a place to start looking for possibilities. --]] 10:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::It was assumed that we are talking about adult fiction, yes. --] 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::There's also the one where you can bid on tickets with an unknown ] but you can make a slightly higher new bid once a day I think until you find out where the absolute lowest that they would accept is. There's also sites where people post which bids did and didn't work at the auctioning site. Am I allowed to say whether this is the cheapest or not? ] (]) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I found , a "bibliography of works of fiction and poetry... containing embedded photographs". ] (]) 12:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Unreadable words in the Bible == | |||
:::::I have no idea how to paste a photo in here. What I am referring to is fiction paperback novels. They don't have to be fiction. Some are non-fiction. That is not the point. The book is a normal paperback, but in the middle of the book the pages are not normal paperback paper. They are a more glossy paper and printed in color with pictures. There is usually four to eight pages of pictures embedded into the middle of the otherwise normal paperback novel. It is very common in young adult novels where they don't want a fully graphic book (like children's books), but they still want some pictures. Out of all the novels where there is a graphic insert in the middle, some of the graphics on those pages are photographs. I've been trying to find an image on Google of books where the center of the book is shiny picture papges, but it keeps pushing me to "Make a photo album book" services. ] (]) 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::*Clarification: "novel" refers only to works of fiction. --] (]) 21:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Can you name one adult fiction (not YA or children's) novel which has a section of photographs in the middle? --] 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::So having photos in the middle of a book is quite common in non-fiction (example: I have a bio of Winston Churchill that has photos of him during various stages of his life). Publishers do this to make printing easier (as the photos use a different paper, it is easier to bind them in the middle… and photos don’t reproduce as well on the paper used for text). | |||
::::::It is certainly rarer for there to be photos in works of fiction, simply because the characters and places described in the story are, well, ''fictional''. But it obviously ''can'' be done (example: if the fictional story is set in a real place, a series of photos of that place might help the reader envision the events that the story describes). ] (]) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I just realized another area for confusion. I was personally considering a any image that looks like a photo to be a photo. But, others may be excluding fictional photographs and only considering actual photographs. If that is the case, the obvious example (still toung adult fiction) would be Carmen Sandiego books, which are commonly packed with photographs of cities, even if they do photoshop an image of the bad guy into them. ] (]) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::]'s novel ''The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece'' tells a story of adapting a comic book into a movie, and includes several pages of that comic book and related ones. (To be clear, these are fictitious comic books, a fiction within a fiction). Where the comic book was printed in color, the book contains a block of pages on different paper as is common in non-fiction. | |||
:::::::::...and then of course there's ]'s novel '']'', which is a spoof biography of an artist, including purported photos of the main character and reproductions of his artworks (actually created by Boyd himself). As our article about the book explains, some people in the art world were fooled. ] (]) 10:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 15 = | |||
From a not reliable source I got that some words in the Bible could not be understood. One of these is the 'daily', in 'our daily bread.' Can someone confirm or refute this hypothesis, if possible with sources? If this is true, what words in the Bible could not be understood so far due to the hand-writing. --] (]) 17:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Refusing royal assent == | |||
:]. The word in Greek is '']'', and the ] (in both Matthew and Luke) is the only place in the entirety of ancient Greek literature that it's found (and there's a phrase for that: ]). We can only interpret it by how it was translated into Latin - as ''quotidianum'' ("daily", "everyday") in the '']'' translation, and as ''supersubstantialem'' ("super-substantial", whatever that means) in the ] translation. | |||
Are there any circumstances where the British monarch would be within their rights to withhold royal assent without triggering a constitutional crisis. I'm imagining a scenario where a government with a supermajority passed legislation abolishing parliament/political parties, for example? I know it's unlikely but it's an interesting hypothetical. | |||
:If you look at most translations of the Bible, they'll have footnotes, some of which point out where, for example, the Hebrew is unclear and the meaning has been interpreted according to the Greek ]. --] (]) 17:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
If the monarch did refuse, what would happen? Would they eventually have to grant it, or would the issue be delegated to the Supreme Court or something like that? --] 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Should probably add that it's rarely, if ever, to do with unclear handwriting. It'll usually be either because the word is rare and its meaning is not well-understood, as in ''epiousios'', or, as Jayron points out below, variation in the manuscripts means we can't be sure which word is the correct one. --] (]) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Our ] article says: {{xt|In 1914, George V took legal advice on withholding Royal Assent from the ]; then highly contentious legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through Parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. He decided not to withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time"}}. ] (]) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{ec}}Well, for one, you need to be clear on what you mean by ]. The collection of texts we call the Bible does not have one, definitive set of original manuscripts. Indeed, we don't have a single manuscript written by the original author of ANY of the works of the Bible, so we don't generally know ''what words'' the original authors may or may not have used. You can read more at ] about some extant, very ''old'' manuscripts. In many cases, when constructing modern translations, there will be differences in the exact wording between different manuscripts, such differences will be noted in the ] of modern translations, so the reader will know what the disagreement is. Specifically about "our daily bread", the phrase is most associated with the ], which is found in two places, with slightly different wording, in ] and in ]. In Matthew, the original greek text covering "daily bread" is "τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον", in which the word "ἐπιούσιον" is used. This word is actually discussed in the Misplaced Pages article ], which notes that it is a unique word, and does not appear anywhere else in contemporary ] literature. The history and etymology of how the word ἐπιούσιον gets translated as "daily bread" is complex, and covered in some detail by the Misplaced Pages article. --]] 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Then there's the "trespasses" question. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Not British, but there was the 1990 case of King ], whose conscience and Catholic faith would not permit him to grant assent to a bill that would liberalise Belgium's abortion laws. A solution was found: | |||
== Why haven't I heard fundamentalists say that minors shouldn't be taken to zoos? == | |||
:* (quote from article) In 1990, when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens that liberalized Belgium's abortion laws was approved by Parliament, he refused to give royal assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudouin was de jure Belgium's chief executive, royal assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions—the Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion—Baudouin asked the government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. The government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the king is temporarily unable to reign, the government as a whole assumes the role of head of state. All government members signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the government called the bicameral legislature in a special session to approve a proposition that Baudouin was capable of reigning again. | |||
: There's no such provision in the UK Constitution as far as I'm aware, although Regents can be and have been appointed in cases of physical incapacity. -- ] </sup></span>]] 15:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::A more likely scenario in your hypothesis is that the Opposition could bring the case to the ] who have the power make rulings on constitutional matters; an enample was ]'s decision ]. 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Cause they might see animals mating? That sounds like something some fundamentalists might say. I've seen it said that some Victorians wanted animals to wear clothes too, though I think I've seen it refuted that anyone suggested that piano and table legs wear clothes. ] (]) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I don't know, but a conservative politician in ] managed to get two donkeys separated for a short time because of outrage about children having to witness them mating in the zoo (Antosia and Napoleon were reunited after a week). See . ---] ] 22:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Both city and country children, especially the latter have ample opportunity to see animals mate, see their anatomy, and draw the obvious parallel. Add to it that children have access to more readily-available information, for example, from us, and I think such tales, while supporting beliefs about conservatives, are likely not general.--] (]) 22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't think I've seen an animal mate outside a zoo until I was a teenager. I saw worms and cockroaches and pigeons mating as a teenager, I might've seen sparrows mate in my 20s, and I don't think I've seen any other animal mate outside of 5th grade at the zoo. I heard a cat yowl sometimes in the alley in my 20s that maybe was mating (cats penises have tom-ward facing barbs to cause ovulation). (I'm from a very big city, 8 million/24 million metro). At any rate, when pigeons and sparrows mate, it doesn't look like mating (one of their cooing types that sounds exactly like pigeon mating is not even pre-mating ritual much less mating, which sounds only like his wings trying to hover and is near instant). Also, I'm not sure if there are common animals without a penis sheath. Any other common male animal's genital area tends to be on the less penis-looking side and the actual penis is inside and has a very unhuman color. And female animals have fur. Many people don't tell their children what sex is until very early puberty. So I don't know what hearing about it from their parents has anything to do with it before then. ] (]) 23:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Wait, you want us to explain why you haven't experienced something based on your own prejudiced view of what a group of people you don't understand but assume you know enough about to make offensive inaccurate judgements about what you think they would believe? How is this even close to an appropriate ref desk question?]] 06:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I used to believe a religion and read Scripture and go to church every week you know. I'm not even agnostic much less the anti-religion flavor of atheist. I never thought it'd be too common because people outside high population density just wouldn't care. But some Christian groups don't wear makeup, show female knees and have stricter limits on TV ratings. I think it's plausible that ''some'' big city fundamentalists might not take their kids to the zoo cause the elephants or chimps might mate while they're watching or something. At the least they would cover their eyes if it happened. Is that so implausible? ] (]) 16:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::We're being trolled. Everyone who lives in a big city has seen dogs mating from a very young age. ] (]) 12:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::See his post to "Women's nipples" below. ] (]) 12:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't remember seeing dogs mating. Sniffing rears and humping on pants, not mating. Most dogs are spayed or neutered and so have no interest, cannot go into heat etc. Stray dogs are very rare, it's even possible I haven't seen one outside of Washington Navy Yard area, DC and one in the suburbs. I don't go out much. Nor do I stand at the out of the way dog pen in the park to watch for mating. ] (]) 15:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Also, pigeons don't mate just anywhere, they do it on ledges and windowsills that don't get opened often cause they're still afraid of the predators of where they evolved. Those places are usually blocked from view if you don't like to be seen at home from all those other apartments. ] (]) 16:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Fratelli Gianfranchi == | |||
== London Missionary Society Choice of Location == | |||
Can anyone find any information about Fratelli Gianfranchi, sculptor(s) of the ]?<ref>{{cite news |title=Daily Telegraph: A New Statue of Washington |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/harrisburg-telegraph-a-new-statue-of-was/162933969/ |work=Harrisburg Telegraph |date=August 18, 1876 |location=] |page=1 |via=] |quote=The statue was executed by Fratelli Gianfranchi, of Carrara, Italy, who modeled it from Leutze's masterpiece}}</ref> I assume ] means brothers, but I could be wrong. | |||
Why did the ] choose Tahiti as the inaugural grounds for their missionary activities? Why specifically Tahiti?--] (]) 22:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 15:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:"Fratelli Gianfranchi" would be translated as "Gianfranchi Brothers" with Gianfranchi being the surname. Looking at Google Books there seems to have existed a sculptor called Battista Gianfranchi from Carrara but I'm not finding much else. --] (]) 06:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The city of ] is famous for its ] which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. ] (]) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. ] (]) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::In the light of the above, the mentions in the article of "the Italian sculptor Fratelli Gianfranchi" should perhaps be modified (maybe ". . . sculptors Fratelli Gianfranchi (Gianfranchi Brothers)"), but our actual sources are thin and this would border on ]. | |||
::::FWIW, the Brothers (or firm) do not have an entry in the Italian Misplaced Pages, but I would have expected there to be Italian-published material about them, perhaps findable in a library or museum in Carrara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I have added the translation for Fratelli Gianfranchi as a footnote. I agree that more information might be available in Carrara. ] (]) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 16 = | |||
: Not an answer but a source: archive.org has which might well contain the answer. Page 20 refers to the recent discovery by Europeans of the Pacific islands, seen as virgin territory for missionaries. ] (]) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Can I seek Chapter 15 protection while a case is ongoing in my home country or after it finished ? == | |||
Simple question. I don’t have Us citizenship, but I owe a large debt amount in New York that can’t legally exist in my home country where I currently live (at least where the 50% interest represent usury even for a factoring contract). | |||
My contract only states that disputes should be discussed within a specific Manhattan court, it doesn’t talk about which is the applicable law beside the fact that French law states that French consumer law applies if a contract is signed if the client live in France (and the contract indeed mention my French address). This was something my creditors were unaware of (along with the fact it needs to be redacted in French to have legal force in such a case), but at that time I was needing legal protection after my first felony, and I would had failed to prove partilly non guilty if I did not got the money on time. I can repay what I borrowed with all my other debts but not the ~$35000 in interest. | |||
== Women's nipples == | |||
Can I use Chapter 15 to redirect in part my creditors to a bankruptcy proceeding in France or is it possible to file for Chapter 15 only once a proceeding is finished ? Can I use it as an individiual or is Chapter 15 only for businesses ? ] (]) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
How does it come that there are different rules for covering nipples for men and women? Do human female breasts have some magical attribute that could traumatize children? --] (]) 23:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:We don't answer questions like that here. You should engage a lawyer. --] 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Chapter 15 bankruptcy does cover individuals and does include processes for people who are foreign citizens. ] (]) 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 17 = | |||
:I thought it was weird as a pre-pubescent also. But I wondered why they're allowed to show the breast as there's really no difference between parts of the beast near the top and parts near the areola. They're all about equally round and identical. | |||
== Raymond Smullyan and Ayn Rand == | |||
:It's not about trauma, it's about sexuality. Because they are female ] that only females old enough to have children have they will make males horny. They are direct signals of reproductive fitness and show ability to breastfeed which you do with sex (intermediate steps elided). This is why big breasts are especially sexy. Some women are hot enough as it is, there's no need to make men suffer in horniness and have difficulty thinking at the business meeting or something. That's why I started masturbating, it was hard to even use the subway anymore after so long without ejaculation (since birth) cause even clothed females made me so horny. Maybe some females don't realize how horny males are. After months of masturbation clothed females in the street that looked my age or older would still make me somewhat horny. | |||
Did ] ever directly discuss or mention ] or ]? I think he might have indirectly referenced her philosophy in a a fictional symposium on truthfulness where a speaker says that he(or she) is not as "fanatical" about being as selfish as possible as an earlier speaker who said he himself was a selfish bastard.] (]) 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:In Africa, Oceania, and the Amazon I guess there was so much damn heat that they let females wear no top. Kind of like the Ancient Egyptian civilization which let people be naked but they still had to cover their secondary sexual characteristics after they got them. Why should their culture have anything to do with us, anyway? Maybe they associate breasts with babies so much that it becomes less sexy for them, too. We however, aren't either suckling or pregnant our whole life from 12 to menopause anymore because babies aren't likely to die anymore. Maybe this is why they showed a lot of the breast in Da Vinci's and ]'s time but not in later Industrial Revolution when fertility rates might've been lower. It's clearly too different ed:a technological level to say if they do it, <s>so</s> we should do it, too. ] (]) 00:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I guess not. Smullyan wrote so much that it is difficult to assert with certainty that he never did, but it has been pointed out by others that his ] philosophical stance is incompatible with Rand's Objectivism.<sup></sup> --] 12:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: ] (]) 09:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::A lot of this is a "nudity ]" in western culture. Cultural taboos do change over time, but they change ''very'' slowly. About 100 years ago the "taboo" against upper body nudity was stronger than it is today, and applied to men as well as women. It was considered somewhat shocking for ''men'' to go shirtless - which is why old swimming costumes for men included shirts. | |||
:::Today, the taboos are changing... In many parts of the western world, it is now perfectly acceptable for women to go topless at the beach - yet it is unacceptable for them to do so while sitting in a cafe ''next'' to the beach. Taboos are not always logical. ] (]) 12:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Australian male escorts show their nipples in ads. ] ] 17:15, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::::I can kind of see the logic in the beach thing. Anything in the street has more of the trappings of civilization (compare business meeting), it closes off less area to parents who don't want their kids to see things that make men very horny, sunbathers are more extroverted than average. Beaches are kind of boring as an adult if you've gone a few times — unless you're not that introverted. You just lie there for hours without anything cognitively simulating, have somewhat of a preference to reading indoors anyway, don't want to do kid things like make sandcastles anymore, might not know how to swim like me. Which leads to some statistical thing with a name where 9X% of beachgoers have gone more than 3 times (participation bias?). Beaches really are only nice when they're in nature. Especially if you have a girlfriend with you. Who wants their kids to see body parts that many/most people only show to their sexual partners and physicians? I wonder if that beach is near the sexual businesses, lol. The lingerie stores and vibrator stores and strip clubs and stuff. My classmates were as least likely to say this as any in the US and even they said it was weird that in Europe like 15 year old girls and their mother and father all sunbathe together naked on the beach. And one 15 year old boy said "15 years old! I'm going to strip off and lie down next to her. How you doing?" That probably happens, lol. Extroverted weirdos. No protective instinct for their children. "Oh I'm sorry good sir but you and your grandson appear to be erect next to my 15 year old daughter. Would you possibly mind going away where you'll probably masturbate to her slightly engorged vulva?" No one said "I don't think it's weird to strip in public with your parents." (or the polite ] satire before that either). | |||
::::I guess it was a civilizedness instinct. When I see men in an undershirt or especially topless in New York City far from a beach/pool/heat wave it's always an extroverted troglodyte. (I have never seen a breast's areola in public even though it's legal in this state). 1900 AD wouldn't be a bad vacation spot though legs was too sexy to say then <sup>(use limbs)</sup> and today gives almost as much instant "poor match" clue as realistically possible unlike then, so I wouldn't want to trade taboo sets (little skin that's not cause of religion = the right tail of the bell curve). I'm just not romantically attracted to females that show lots of cleavage or leg anymore. They're terrible personality matches. ] (]) 15:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::<small>One cannot help but mention '']'' at this juncture... ] (]) 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::::::<small>I don't know why families sunbathe like that. Don't they realize how if two or three 9th grade friends suddenly did a similar " and erected and then ogled a few seconds" it would suddenly go from harassment/low level sex crime to just tactless if everyone had clothes on?</small> | |||
::::::The original question is a problem especially for small children, related to ] of the little girls. On the beach in my European culture in the past, it was common and normal for all little girls to wear the same kind of bathing suits as the boys, with no bra. It used to help make it feel very natural that children have no sexuality. But since everything has been ] and merchandized, even children and even little children, now on the same beaches you always see the little girls wearing a bra, as if they had something to hide. ] (]) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Good point. ] (]) 15:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
= |
= January 18 = | ||
== "The Narrow Way" issued to prisoners in 1916 == | |||
== Last burial in Westminster Abbey == | |||
In his book '''', about prison life in England in 1916, the Quaker Hubert Peet says: | |||
According to our articles ], ], and ], the last burial (as opposed to interment of ashes) at Westminster Abbey was in 1936. However, this statement is flagged ''dubious-discuss'' and is unreferenced. Various other on-line sources of equal (viz, low) reliability state that the last burial was that of ] in 1920. None of the ], who have a private crypt in the Abbey, died in the right timeframe. Can we find a definitive reference for this - in particular, the identity of the deceased? ] (]) 13:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:On entry one is given a Bible, Prayer Book, and Hymn Book. In the ordinary way these would be supplemented by a curious little manual of devotion entitled “The Narrow Way,” but at the Scrubs Quakers were mercifully allowed in its place the Fellowship Hymn Book and the Friends’ Book of Discipline. | |||
: The says "''The ashes of Rudyard Kipling, poet and writer, were buried in Poets' Corner at noon on 23 January 1936''" - that's the only reference to a 1936 interment I can find on the website. Could this be the source of the confusion? ] (]) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::P.S. the page for the 1920 burial (actual burial) of the unknown soldier. Again no mention of last. ] (]) 15:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
What was this book ''The Narrow Way''? | |||
:::Ah. allows a search by time period. Kipling was certainly not the last to have ashes buried; for example, architect 's ashes were buried on 5 December 2010. And the unknown warrior wasn't the last burial either; canon was buried in 1992. ] (]) 16:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for the links! Appropriate changes have been made to the articles. ] (]) 19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
I thought the question would be easy to answer if the book was standard issue, but I haven't found anything. (Yes, I'm aware that the title is a reference to Matthew 7:14.) ] (]) 03:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== UK envelope and paper size circa 1920 == | |||
:Letters of a Prisoner for Conscience Sake - Page 54 (Corder Catchpool · 1941, via Google books) says "The Narrow Way , you must know , is as much a prison institution as green flannel underclothing ( awfu ' kitly , as Wee Macgregor would say ) , beans and fat bacon , superannuated “ duster " -pocket - handkerchiefs , suet pudding ... and many other truly remarkable things !" so it does seem to have been standard issue. ] (]) 04:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I was watching some ] and noticed that the envelopes, as well as the paper enclosed, were much smaller than the current ones. If I'm not mistaken, the "standard" envelope being used today in the UK is the DL size, being able to hold twice-folded A4 sheets . What would have been the "standard" envelope size and letter paper size during the 1920s? ] (]) 15:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The old Imperial paper sizes were ] (smaller) and ] (larger). They went out of use in the 70s. is a page giving a full explanation. --] (]) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Google Books finds innumerable publishers' adverts for ''The Narrow Way, Being a Complete Manual of Devotion, with a Guide to Confirmation and Holy Communion'', compiled by E.B. . Many of them, of widely varying date, claim that the print run is in its two hundred and forty-fifth thousand. it's claimed that it was first published c. 1869, and have a copy of a new edition from as late as 1942. Apart from that, I agree, it's remarkably difficult to find anything about it. --] (]) 12:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== What was the worth of a Czechoslovak koruna in 1993? == | |||
= January 19 = | |||
Was it 1 Czechoslovak koruna '''=''' 1 Czech koruna '''=''' 1 Slovak koruna? or what was the exchange to this 2 currencies? --] (]) 19:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Our article at ] states it was 1:1:1. However this didn't last long, see . ] (]) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Federal death penalty == | |||
== is the social rot since the 60's real? == | |||
Is there a list of federal criminal cases where the federal government sought the death penalty but the jury sentenced the defendant to life in prison instead? I know ]'s case is one, but I'm unsure of any others. ] | ] 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
there's an annoying crowd of SJWs on youtube and other places, who say stuff like "we've come forward as a species", that the distant past (which to them is anything before Civil Rights) was slavery-sexism-H**r-no exceptions () and that . Invariably they produce ]. However, many other people, and not just right wing Christians, think there has been a marked social rot. Who is right? How could this be scientifically settled in principle? ] (]) 21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Official portraits of Donald Trump's first presidency == | |||
: SJW = ]? -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::yes ] (]) | |||
:], ], and ] (particularly its "See Also" section) might be useful starting points. ] (]) 21:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::It can't be "scientifically settled in principle". People discuss these things, as you correctly point out. I just want to note that this project frowns upon the ]. ] (]) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>. As to me, I hardly ever edit anything in the article space except typos. ] (]) 21:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
::: <small> (e/c) Yes, we're much more concerned with waging wearisome wars over comma placements and sundry other matters of monumental moment. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 21:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
{{multiple image | |||
:::Social rot and the ''change-in-living-standards'' are two different things. So one can't ask ''Who is right?'' Every generation becomes aware of what 'they' view as social rot. It is a part of a continuing cycle of society. --] (]) 21:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| image1 = 20170607-OSEC-PJK-0061 (34770550600).jpg | |||
| alt1 = Yellow cartouche | |||
:The ubiquity of cellphones could be argued to be part of alleged "social rot". The thing is, every generation things they were better off during the time of their youth. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| width1 = 413 | |||
| caption1 = *grim* | |||
There was a great book I read which made a very good defense of leftism and one of the points was that America's having wage rot. Capitalism still benefited the middle class until about 1970 and after that middle-class inflation-adjusted family income flat-lined and that family has to do much more work to even get that (much fewer women worked in 1970). So ''100%'' of economic growth has gone to the upper two or three quintiles (Europe is much better). Maybe someone remembers its name. There has been some social rot. Reality shows. Snooki and the Kardashians. Others are going away (in the US, birth, abortion and miscarriage rates of the 15-17 year old demographic have all about halved since 1990, non-viral STDs have dropped since the 60's, the percent of people addicted to nicotine is flat or declining in developed countries, mass famines probably won't happen like they thought it would, the pain of slow and expensive integrated circuits). On the bad ledger, I've heard that in Walter Cronkite's day (1980s) the nightly national news was real news. Now it's like.. Diane Sawyers. I can't even watch that shit. There's almost no actual news in every program. I'm not exaggerating, it's mostly things like a 5 minute piece on ''one family'' who got laid off. And that stupid thing she does at the end of every story, she just repeats something that anyone who had at least 50% attention on the TV had already thought, not exaggerating. ''"Climate change, lots of disagreement."'' is a typical useless statement. No matter what the story was (like something that killed thousands?), she reads it correctly (unemotionally), then says the useless statement with the tone of the sweetest but overly cheery mother talking to her kids (so it seems like she's not going to read the next story for 2 seconds afterward like anyone doing that), then she loses all "emotion" milliseconds after ending and reads the next story unemotionally again with almost no pause between stories. I'm not sure if something this unscientific can ever be determined scientifically but I'd say on balance even America is improving slowly. Much slower than it could. We need a ] government. ] (]) 23:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| image2 = Donald Trump official portrait (cropped).jpg | |||
| alt2 = Official portrait? | |||
| width2 = 200 | |||
| caption2 = *grin* | |||
}} | |||
Commons category '']'' only contains variations of the portrait with Donald Trump smiling. But '']'' only contains photos incorporating Trump's official portrait with a vigorous facial expression, which is otherwise not even included in Commons?! This seems inconsistent - what is the background and status of either photo? --] (]) 10:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:51, 19 January 2025
Welcome to the humanities sectionof the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
January 5
How to search for awkwardly named topics
On and off I've been looking for good sources for the concepts of general union and trade union federation so as to improve the articles, but every time I try I only get one or two somewhat helpful results. Many of the results are not of material about the concepts of general union or trade union federations, but often about a specific instance of them, and as a result hard to gleen a lot from about the broader concept. Typcially this is because of issues such as many general unions being named as such (for example Transport & General Workers' Union). I'm aware of the search trick that'd be something like "general union" -Transport & General Workers' Union
but I've found it largely cumbersome and ineffective, often seeming to filter out any potential material all together
Thought I'd ask because I'd like to improve those articles, and this is an issue I'm sure would come up again for me otherwise on other articles Bejakyo (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do any of the articles listed at Unionism help? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you search for , most hits will not be about a specific instance. --Lambiam 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
January 6
What does the Thawabit consist of?
I asked about this at the article talk page and WikiProject Palestine, no response. Maybe it's not a question Misplaced Pages can answer, but I'm curious and it would improve the article. Prezbo (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's acronym (or an abbreviation) for the four principles enumerated in the article. Like how the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Abductive (reasoning) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thawabit is short for alThawabit alWataniat alFilastinia, the "Palestinian National Constants". Thawabit is the plural of thabit, "something permanent or invariable; constant". --Lambiam 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that I'm not sure the article is correct. The sourcing is thin, reference are paywalled, offline, or dead, and Google isn't helpful. Other scholarly and activist sources give different versions of the Thawabet, e.g.This one adds the release of Palestinian prisoners, this one adds that Palestine is indivisible. The article says that these principles were formulated by the PLO in 1977 but doesn't link to a primary source (like the Bill of Rights). I don't know if you're a subject matter expert here, I'm not--actually trying to figure this out. Prezbo (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was able to access the paywalled articles through the Misplaced Pages library, which adds a little more clarity. Prezbo (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to this source, a fifth principle was added in 2012: "the objection to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people". However, I cannot find this in the cited source --Lambiam 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I checked the Arabic Misplaced Pages article before I responded above, and they list the same four principles. Abductive (reasoning) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That appears to be a translation of the English article, so this doesn't mean much to me. Prezbo (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've poked around a little, and there doesn't appear to have been any change. Abductive (reasoning) 13:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list in the book I linked to above is not the same as that in our article. The book does not include a "right to resistance", but demands the release by Israel of all Palestinian prisoners. It would be good to have a sourced, authoritative version, in particular the actual 1977 formulation by the PLO. Of course, nothing is so changeable as political principles, so one should expect non-trivial amendments made in the course of time. --Lambiam 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That book is incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do you know? --Lambiam 00:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That book is incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list in the book I linked to above is not the same as that in our article. The book does not include a "right to resistance", but demands the release by Israel of all Palestinian prisoners. It would be good to have a sourced, authoritative version, in particular the actual 1977 formulation by the PLO. Of course, nothing is so changeable as political principles, so one should expect non-trivial amendments made in the course of time. --Lambiam 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've poked around a little, and there doesn't appear to have been any change. Abductive (reasoning) 13:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The text does not explicitly say, "among others", but the use of بها بما في ذلك suggests that this list of four principles is not exhaustive. --Lambiam 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That appears to be a translation of the English article, so this doesn't mean much to me. Prezbo (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I checked the Arabic Misplaced Pages article before I responded above, and they list the same four principles. Abductive (reasoning) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
January 7
Is there such a thing as a joke type index?
Has anyone produced an index of joke types and schemata (schemes?) along the lines of the Aarne–Thompson–Uther Index for folk tales? More generally what kind of studies of the structure of jokes and humor are available? Has anyone come up with an A.I. that can generate new jokes? 178.51.8.23 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- For starters, there's Index of joke types. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- AI generated jokes have been around for years. Just Google for it. They range from weird to meh. Shantavira| 10:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gershon Legman made an attempt of sorts in his two joke collections, but it was kind of a half-assed approach: there are a bunch of indices printed on pages, but no key tying them together per se. His interest was in the core of the subject of the joke, so he might have said, for example, that these jokes were all based on unresolved Oedipal drives while those jokes were based on hatred of the mother (he was a capital "F" Freudian). The link Bugs shared is more about the formats of the jokes themselves, though some are also differentiated by their subject (albeit in a more superficial way than Legman attempted). Matt Deres (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Arthur Koestler has attempted to develop a theory of humour (as well as art and discovery), first in Insight and Outlook (1949) and slightly elaborated further in The Act of Creation (1964). He did, however, not develop a typology of jokes. IMO Victor Raskin's script-based semantic theory of humor presented in Semantic Mechanisms of Humor (1985) is essentially the same as Koestler's, but Raskin does not reference Koestler in the book. For an extensive overview of theories of humour see Contemporary Linguistic Theories of Humour. --Lambiam 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
January 8
The Nest magazine, UK, 1920s
I have a copy of The Grocer's Window Book. London: The Nest Magazine. 1922., "arranged by The Editor of The Nest". The address of The Nest Magazine is given as 15 Arthur Street, London, EC4. It contains suggestions for arranging window displays in an attractive manner to attract customers into independent grocer's shops. I would be interested to know more about The Nest. I suspect it may have something to do with Nestles Milk, as 1) the back cover is a full-page advertisement for Nestles and Ideal Milk, and there are several other adverts for Nestles products in the book, and 2) one of the suggested window displays involves spelling out "IDEAL" with tins of Ideal Milk. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Nest, 1922. M.—1st. 6d. Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co., 15 Arthur Street, E.c.4
according to Willing's press guide and advertisers directory and handbook. I also found it in The Newspaper press directory and advertisers' guide, which merely confirms the address and the price of sixpence. Both of these were for the year 1922, which suggests to me that the magazine might not have survived into 1923. M signifies monthly, and 1st probably means published on the 1st of the month. Card Zero (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Historical U.S. population data by age (year 1968)
In the year 1968, what percentage of the United States population was under 25 years old? I am wondering about this because I am watching the movie Wild in the Streets, and want to know if a percentage claimed in the film was pulled out of a hat or was based in fact. 2601:18A:C500:E830:CE4:140C:29E5:594F (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What percentage did they give? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 52% (it's on the movie poster). Card Zero (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tabel No. 6 in the 1971 US Census Report (p. 8) gives, for 1960, 80093 Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of 180007 Kpeople, corresponding to 44.5%, and, for 1970, 94095 Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of 204265 Kpeople, corresponding to 46.1%. Interpolation results in an estimate of 45.8% for 1968. --Lambiam 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who are Kpeople? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or 1 kiloperson. — Kpalion 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who are Kpeople? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Countries with greatest land mass
Can someone please fill in these blanks? Thank you.
1. Currently, the USA ranks as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass.
2. If the USA were to "annex" or "acquire" both Canada and Greenland, the USA would rank as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass.
Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- See List of countries and dependencies by area, which gives a nuanced answer to your first question, and the answer to your second question is obvious from the data in the article.-Gadfium (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 4 and 1. But the chance of Trump to annex Canada is close to zero. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also the US somehow annexing Greenland is infinitely improbable. It's part of the European Union. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trump's presidential term is four years and the process of discussion would take longer than that. Stanleykswong (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it isn't. —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it is effectively: Greenland and the European Union says "all citizens of the Realm of Denmark residing in Greenland (Greenlandic nationals) are EU citizens". Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But Denmark is a NATO member. The US invading Greenland will trigger NATO Article 5. --Lambiam 11:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, US is a member of NATO. The situation will be very complicated. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But Denmark is a NATO member. The US invading Greenland will trigger NATO Article 5. --Lambiam 11:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also the US somehow annexing Greenland is infinitely improbable. It's part of the European Union. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't attribute any significance to the Orange Lunatic's weird brain processes. He makes outlandish statements all the time, for one and only one reason: to get attention. And most people fall for it, expertly led by the world's media. He has the same self-involved strategy that any pre-vocal child has: anything's fair game as long as I get the attention I crave. This is completely normal in small children. In presidents of the United States of America, not so much. -- Jack of Oz 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trump is, if nothing else, a master at manipulating the media. He can talk all he wants, but until he does something, it's just talk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All politicians are actors and good actors do what the role requires them to do whether they like it or not. What we need to do is see what they did, not what they preached. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trump is, if nothing else, a master at manipulating the media. He can talk all he wants, but until he does something, it's just talk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
January 11
JeJu AirFlight 2216
Is this the beginning of a new conspiracy theory? On 11 January, the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board stated that both the CVR and FDR had stopped recording four minutes before the aircraft crashed.
Why would the flight recorder stop recording after the bird strike? Don't they have backup battery for flight recorders? Ohanian (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? Stanleykswong (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. Ohanian (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It says on wikipedia that "With the reduced power requirements of solid-state recorders, it is now practical to incorporate a battery in the units, so that recording can continue until flight termination, even if the aircraft electrical system fails. ". So how can the CVR stop recording the pilot's voices??? Ohanian (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The aircraft type was launched in 1994, this particular aircraft entered service in 2009. It may have had an older type of recorder.
- I too am puzzled by some aspects of this crash, but I'm sure the investigators will enlighten us when they're ready. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US . I doubt anyone else required them before. So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. .) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest . Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like . The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters "
a former transport ministry accident investigator, said the discovery of the missing data from the budget airline's Boeing 737-800 jet's crucial final minutes was surprising and suggests all power, including backup, may have been cut, which is rare.
" Note that the RIPS only have to work for 10 minutes, I think the timeline of this suggests power should not have been lost for 10 minutes at the 4 minutes point, but it's not something I looked in to. BTW, I think this is sort of explained in some of the other sources but if not see . Having a RIPS is a little more complicated than just having a box with a battery. There's no point recording nothing so you need to ensure that the RIPS is connected to/powering mics in the cabin. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US . I doubt anyone else required them before. So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. .) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest . Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like . The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters "
- The aircraft made 13 flights in 48 hours, meaning less than 3.7 hours per flight. Is it too much? Its last flight from Bangkok to Korea had a normal flight time for slightly more than 5 hours. Does it mean the pilots had to rush through preflight checks? Stanleykswong (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- With this kind of schedule, it is questionable that the aircraft is well-maintained. Stanleykswong (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The OP seems to be obsessed with creating a new conspiracy theory out of very little real information, and even less expertise. Perhaps a new hobby is in order? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Just for info, the article is Jeju Air Flight 2216. This question has not yet been raised at the Talk page there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...nor should it be, per WP:TALK. Shantavira| 10:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in Reliable sources, not OR speculated about by/in the Misplaced Pages article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there are Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Quite. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have now posed the question there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in Reliable sources, not OR speculated about by/in the Misplaced Pages article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there are Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Fortune 500
Is there any site where one can view complete Fortune 500 and Fortune Global 500 for free? These indices are so widely used so is there such a site? --40bus (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ Stanleykswong (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
January 12
Questions
- Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU?
- Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries?
- Why is Russia not in NATO?
- If all African countries are in AU, why are all European countries not in EU?
- Why Faroe Islands and Greenland have not become sovereign states yet?
- Can non-sovereign states or country subdivisions have embassies?
- Why French overseas departments have not become sovereign states yet? --40bus (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see that UCL offer a course on Modern European History & Politics. Had you considered that, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- See: United Kingdom and the euro
- Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not meet the criteria for joining the European Union
- If you google "Nato's primary purpose", you will know.
- The two do not have logical connection.
- They are too small to be an independent country
- Non-sovereign states or countries, for example Wales and Scotland, are countries within a sovereign state. They don't have embassies of their own.
- Unlike the British territories, all people living in the French territories are fully enfranchised and can vote for the French national assembly, so they are fully represented in the French democracy and do not have the need of becoming a sovereign state.
- Stanleykswong (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some of the French overseas territories are Overseas collectivities with a degree of autonomy from Paris, whilst New Caledonia has a special status and may be edging towards full independence. I imagine all the overseas territories contain at least some people who would prefer to be fully independent, there's a difference between sending a few representatives to the government of a larger state and having your own sovereign state (I offer no opinion on the merits/drawbacks of such an aspiration). Chuntuk (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see that UCL offer a course on Modern European History & Politics. Had you considered that, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too many questions all at once… but to address the first with an overly simplistic answer: The British preferred the Pound. It had been one of the strongest currencies in the world for generations, and keeping it was a matter of national pride. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. See United Kingdom and the euro
- 2. "... geopolitical considerations, such as preserving Russia’s status as a former imperial power, is more important to Moscow than economic issues when it comes to foreign policy. Russia’s sees relations with the EU to be much less important than bilateral relations with the EU member-states that carry the most political weight, namely France, Germany and, to some extent, Britain. Russia thus clearly emphasizes politics over economics. While NATO enlargement was seen by Moscow to be a very important event, Russia barely noticed the enlargement of the EU on May 1." Russia and the European Union (May 2004). See also Russia–European Union relations.
- 3. See Russia–NATO relations.
- Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- (5) They're too small? Somebody tell Vatican City, Nauru (21 km) and Tuvalu (26 km) they have no business being nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- More like economically too weak. From our article on the Faroe Islands: “In 2011, 13% of the Faroe Islands' national income consists of economic aid from Denmark, corresponding to roughly 5% of GDP.” They're net recipients of taxpayer money; no way they could have built their largely underground road network themselves. The Faroe Islands have no significant agriculture, little industry or tourism. The only thing they really have is fishing rights in their huge exclusive economic zone, but an economy entirely dependent on fishing rights is vulnerable. They could try as a tax haven, but competing against the Channel Islands or Cayman Islands won't be easy. Greenland has large natural resources, including rare earth metals, and developing mining would generate income, but also pollute the environment and destroy Greenlandic culture. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, because of religious reason, Vatican City is very unique. Second, although it is technically an independent state, according to Article 22 of the Lateran Treaty, people sentenced to imprisonment by Vatican City serve their time in prison in Italy. Third, Saint Peter's Square is actually patrolled by Italian police. Its security and defence heavily relies on Italy. Its situation is similar to Liechtenstein whose security and defence are heavily relies on Austria and Switzerland and its sentenced persons are serving their time in Austria. The key common point of these small states are they’re inland states surrounded by rich and friendly countries that they can trust. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As for Nauru and Tuvalu, the two states located near the equator, they are quite far away from other countries that would pose a threat to their national security. The temperature, the reef islands and the atolls around them provide them with ample natural resources. However, even gifted with natural resources, these small pacific ocean islands are facing problems of low living standard, low GDP per capital and low HDI.
- Back to the case of Faroe Islands and Greenland, people of these two places enjoy a relatively higher living standard and higher HDI than previously mentioned island states because they have the edge of being able to save a lot of administrative and security costs. If one day Faroe Islands and Greenland became independent, they will face other problems of independence, including problems similar to the fishing conflicts between UK and Norway. The future could be troublesome if Faroe Islands and Greenland ever sought independence from Demark. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (5) They're too small? Somebody tell Vatican City, Nauru (21 km) and Tuvalu (26 km) they have no business being nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone's bored again and expecting us to entertain them. Nanonic (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 40bus often asks mass questions like this on the Language Ref. Desk. Now you get to enjoy him on the Humanities Ref. Desk. The answers to 2, 3, and 4 are somewhat the same -- the African Union is basically symbolic, while the EU and NATO are highly-substantive, and don't admit nations for reasons of geographic symmetry only. AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
January 13
reference behind Maxine_(given_name)
from Season 4 Episode 12 of the West Wing:
They all begin to exit.
BARTLET Maxine.
C.J. That's you.
JOSH I know.
Leo, C.J., and Toby leave.
What is Maxine referencing here? From the context of the scene, it's probably a historical figure related to politics or the arts. I went over the list in Maxine_(given_name) but couldn't find anything I recognize. Epideurus (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
(I asked on the Humanities desk instead of the Entertainment desk because I'm guessing the reference isn't a pop-culture one but a historical one.) Epideurus (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to fandom.com: "When the President calls Josh Maxine, he refers to Hallmark Cards character Maxine, known for demanding people to agree with her." . --Amble (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the cards I see here, Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness. --Lambiam 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- More background on Maxine here: https://agefriendlyvibes.com/blogs/news/maxine-the-birth-of-the-ageist-birthday-card Chuntuk (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the cards I see here, Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness. --Lambiam 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
January 14
Ministerial confirmation hearings
Is there any parliamentary democracy in which all a prime minister's choices for minister are questioned by members of parliament before they take office and need to be accepted by them in order to take office? Mcljlm (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No individual grilling sessions, but in Israel the Knesset has to approve the prime minister's choices. Card Zero (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Is an occupied regime a country?
If a regime A of a country is mostly occupied by regime B, and regime B is later recognized as the representative of the country, while regime A, unable to reclaim control of the entire country, claims that it is itself a country and independent of regime B. the questio"n arises: is regim"e A a country? 36.230.3.161 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you talking about a Government-in-exile? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is based on the definition of a country. Anyone in any place can claim to be a country. There is no legal paperwork required. There is no high court that you go to and make your claim to be a country. The first step is simply making the claim, "We are an independent country." Then, other countries have to recognize that claim. It is not 100%. There are claims where a group claims to be a country but nobody else recognizes it as a country, such as South Ossetia. There are others that have been recognized in the past, but not currently, such as Taiwan. There are some that are recognized by only a few countries, such as Abkhazia. From another point of view. There are organizations that claim they have the authority to declare what is and is not a country, such as the United Nations. But, others do not accept their authority on the matter. In the end, there is no way clearly define what is a country, which makes this question difficult to answer. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Taiwan
is a country,
although I suppose the fact that this has multiple citations says something. (Mainly, it says that the CCP would like to edit it out.) Card Zero (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Taiwan
- Instead of trying to draft an abstract, do you have a concrete example you're thinking of? --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- One should always maintain a distinguish between countries and the regimes administering them. Syria was not the Assad regime – Assad is gone but Syria remains. Likewise, Russia is not the Putin regime. Identifying the two can only lead to confusion.
- What makes a geographic region (or collection of regions) a country – more precisely, a sovereign state? There are countless territorial disputes, several of which are sovereignty disputes; for example, the regimes of North and South Korea claim each other's territory and deny each other's sovereignty over the territory the other effectively administers. Each has its own list of supporters of their claims. Likewise, the People's Republic of China and Republic of China claim each other's territory. By the definition of dispute, there is no agreement in such cases on the validity of such claims. The answer to the question whether the contested region in a sovereignty dispute is a country depends on which side of the dispute one chooses, which has more to do with geopolitical interests than with any objectively applicable criteria. --Lambiam 10:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- At least in part, it depends on other countries agreeing that a particular area is actually a nation and that the government that claims to represnt it has some legitimacy; see our Diplomatic recognition article. For many nations, recognition would depend on whether the Charter of the United Nations had been adhered to. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
One of the peculiarities of the Cold War is the emergence of competing governments in multiple countries, along a more or less similar pattern. We had West and East Germany, South and North Vietnam, South and North Korea and ROC and PRC. The only thing that separates the Chinese case from the onset is that there was no usage of the terms West China (for PRC) and East China (for ROC), since the ROC control was limited to a single province (and a few minor islands). Over time the ROC lost most of its diplomatic recognition, and the notion that the government in Taipei represented all of China (including claims on Mongolia etc) became anachronistic. Gradually over decades, in the West it became increasingly common to think of Taiwan as a separate country as it looked separate from mainland China on maps and whatnot. Somewhat later within Taiwan itself political movements wanted (in varying degrees) to abandon the ROC and declare the island as a sovereign state of its own grew. Taiwanese nationalism is essentially a sort of separatism from the ROC ruling Taiwan. In all of the Cold War divided countries, there have been processes were the political separation eventually becomes a cultural and social separation as well. At the onset everyone agrees that the separation is only a political-institutional technicality, but over time societies diverge. Even 35 years after the end of the GDR, East Germans still feel East German. In Korea and China there is linguistic divergence, as spelling reforms and orthography have developed differently under different political regimes. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference with Taiwan vs. the other Cold War governments is that pre-ROC Taiwan was under Japanese rule. Whereas other governments split existing countries, Taiwan was arguably a separate entity already. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the UK, the long-standing diplomatic position is that they recognise governments not countries, which has often avoided such complicated tangles. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Photos in a novel
I'm reading a certain novel. In the middle of Chapter II (written in the first person), there are three pages containing photos of the hotel the author is writing about. Flicking through I find another photo towards the end of the book. I think: this must be a memoir, not a novel. I check, but every source says it's a novel.
I've never encountered anything like this before: photos in a novel. Sure, novels are often based on real places, real people etc, but they use words to tell the story. Photos are the stuff of non-fiction. Are there any precedents for this? -- Jack of Oz 20:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, the novel is Forest Dark by Nicole Krauss. -- Jack of Oz 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- IIRC Loving Monsters by James Hamilton-Patterson has some photos in it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bruges-la-Morte by Georges Rodenbach, 1892. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can quickly go to the fiction stacks and pull a dozen books with photos in them. It is common that the photos are in the middle of the book because of the way the book pressing works. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? I would like to hear some examples of what you're referring to. Like Jack, I think the appearance of photos in (adult) fiction is rare. The novels of W. G. Sebald are one notable exception. --Viennese Waltz 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This post in a blog "with an emphasis on W.G. Sebald and literature with embedded photographs" may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Thanks. So, this is actually a thing. Someone should add it to our List of Things that are Things. -- Jack of Oz 18:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This post in a blog "with an emphasis on W.G. Sebald and literature with embedded photographs" may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? I would like to hear some examples of what you're referring to. Like Jack, I think the appearance of photos in (adult) fiction is rare. The novels of W. G. Sebald are one notable exception. --Viennese Waltz 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "adult" did not come up until you just decided to use it there. I stated that there are many fiction paperback books with a middle section of graphics, which commonly include images of photographs. You replied that that is rare in adult fiction. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Photonovels, you mean? Card Zero (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was assumed that we are talking about adult fiction, yes. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "adult" did not come up until you just decided to use it there. I stated that there are many fiction paperback books with a middle section of graphics, which commonly include images of photographs. You replied that that is rare in adult fiction. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found Photography-Embedded Literature – Annual Lists, 2010-present, a "bibliography of works of fiction and poetry... containing embedded photographs". Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to paste a photo in here. What I am referring to is fiction paperback novels. They don't have to be fiction. Some are non-fiction. That is not the point. The book is a normal paperback, but in the middle of the book the pages are not normal paperback paper. They are a more glossy paper and printed in color with pictures. There is usually four to eight pages of pictures embedded into the middle of the otherwise normal paperback novel. It is very common in young adult novels where they don't want a fully graphic book (like children's books), but they still want some pictures. Out of all the novels where there is a graphic insert in the middle, some of the graphics on those pages are photographs. I've been trying to find an image on Google of books where the center of the book is shiny picture papges, but it keeps pushing me to "Make a photo album book" services. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clarification: "novel" refers only to works of fiction. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you name one adult fiction (not YA or children's) novel which has a section of photographs in the middle? --Viennese Waltz 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- So having photos in the middle of a book is quite common in non-fiction (example: I have a bio of Winston Churchill that has photos of him during various stages of his life). Publishers do this to make printing easier (as the photos use a different paper, it is easier to bind them in the middle… and photos don’t reproduce as well on the paper used for text).
- It is certainly rarer for there to be photos in works of fiction, simply because the characters and places described in the story are, well, fictional. But it obviously can be done (example: if the fictional story is set in a real place, a series of photos of that place might help the reader envision the events that the story describes). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just realized another area for confusion. I was personally considering a any image that looks like a photo to be a photo. But, others may be excluding fictional photographs and only considering actual photographs. If that is the case, the obvious example (still toung adult fiction) would be Carmen Sandiego books, which are commonly packed with photographs of cities, even if they do photoshop an image of the bad guy into them. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tom Hanks's novel The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece tells a story of adapting a comic book into a movie, and includes several pages of that comic book and related ones. (To be clear, these are fictitious comic books, a fiction within a fiction). Where the comic book was printed in color, the book contains a block of pages on different paper as is common in non-fiction.
- ...and then of course there's William Boyd's novel Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928–1960, which is a spoof biography of an artist, including purported photos of the main character and reproductions of his artworks (actually created by Boyd himself). As our article about the book explains, some people in the art world were fooled. Turner Street (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tom Hanks's novel The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece tells a story of adapting a comic book into a movie, and includes several pages of that comic book and related ones. (To be clear, these are fictitious comic books, a fiction within a fiction). Where the comic book was printed in color, the book contains a block of pages on different paper as is common in non-fiction.
- I just realized another area for confusion. I was personally considering a any image that looks like a photo to be a photo. But, others may be excluding fictional photographs and only considering actual photographs. If that is the case, the obvious example (still toung adult fiction) would be Carmen Sandiego books, which are commonly packed with photographs of cities, even if they do photoshop an image of the bad guy into them. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
January 15
Refusing royal assent
Are there any circumstances where the British monarch would be within their rights to withhold royal assent without triggering a constitutional crisis. I'm imagining a scenario where a government with a supermajority passed legislation abolishing parliament/political parties, for example? I know it's unlikely but it's an interesting hypothetical.
If the monarch did refuse, what would happen? Would they eventually have to grant it, or would the issue be delegated to the Supreme Court or something like that? --Andrew 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Our Royal assent article says: In 1914, George V took legal advice on withholding Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill; then highly contentious legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through Parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. He decided not to withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time". Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not British, but there was the 1990 case of King Baudouin of Belgium, whose conscience and Catholic faith would not permit him to grant assent to a bill that would liberalise Belgium's abortion laws. A solution was found:
- (quote from article) In 1990, when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens that liberalized Belgium's abortion laws was approved by Parliament, he refused to give royal assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudouin was de jure Belgium's chief executive, royal assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions—the Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion—Baudouin asked the government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. The government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the king is temporarily unable to reign, the government as a whole assumes the role of head of state. All government members signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the government called the bicameral legislature in a special session to approve a proposition that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.
- There's no such provision in the UK Constitution as far as I'm aware, although Regents can be and have been appointed in cases of physical incapacity. -- Jack of Oz 15:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- A more likely scenario in your hypothesis is that the Opposition could bring the case to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom who have the power make rulings on constitutional matters; an enample was Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament in 2019. 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Fratelli Gianfranchi
Can anyone find any information about Fratelli Gianfranchi, sculptor(s) of the Statue of George Washington (Trenton, New Jersey)? I assume wikt:fratelli means brothers, but I could be wrong.
References
- "Daily Telegraph: A New Statue of Washington". Harrisburg Telegraph. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. August 18, 1876. p. 1 – via Newspapers.com.
The statue was executed by Fratelli Gianfranchi, of Carrara, Italy, who modeled it from Leutze's masterpiece
TSventon (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Fratelli Gianfranchi" would be translated as "Gianfranchi Brothers" with Gianfranchi being the surname. Looking at Google Books there seems to have existed a sculptor called Battista Gianfranchi from Carrara but I'm not finding much else. --82.58.35.213 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The city of Carrara is famous for its marble which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. Xuxl (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the light of the above, the mentions in the article of "the Italian sculptor Fratelli Gianfranchi" should perhaps be modified (maybe ". . . sculptors Fratelli Gianfranchi (Gianfranchi Brothers)"), but our actual sources are thin and this would border on WP:OR.
- FWIW, the Brothers (or firm) do not have an entry in the Italian Misplaced Pages, but I would have expected there to be Italian-published material about them, perhaps findable in a library or museum in Carrara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the translation for Fratelli Gianfranchi as a footnote. I agree that more information might be available in Carrara. TSventon (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The city of Carrara is famous for its marble which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. Xuxl (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
January 16
Can I seek Chapter 15 protection while a case is ongoing in my home country or after it finished ?
Simple question. I don’t have Us citizenship, but I owe a large debt amount in New York that can’t legally exist in my home country where I currently live (at least where the 50% interest represent usury even for a factoring contract).
My contract only states that disputes should be discussed within a specific Manhattan court, it doesn’t talk about which is the applicable law beside the fact that French law states that French consumer law applies if a contract is signed if the client live in France (and the contract indeed mention my French address). This was something my creditors were unaware of (along with the fact it needs to be redacted in French to have legal force in such a case), but at that time I was needing legal protection after my first felony, and I would had failed to prove partilly non guilty if I did not got the money on time. I can repay what I borrowed with all my other debts but not the ~$35000 in interest.
Can I use Chapter 15 to redirect in part my creditors to a bankruptcy proceeding in France or is it possible to file for Chapter 15 only once a proceeding is finished ? Can I use it as an individiual or is Chapter 15 only for businesses ? 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:6CE2:1F60:AD30:6C2F (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't answer questions like that here. You should engage a lawyer. --Viennese Waltz 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chapter 15 bankruptcy does cover individuals and does include processes for people who are foreign citizens. The basics. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
January 17
Raymond Smullyan and Ayn Rand
Did Raymond Smullyan ever directly discuss or mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism? I think he might have indirectly referenced her philosophy in a a fictional symposium on truthfulness where a speaker says that he(or she) is not as "fanatical" about being as selfish as possible as an earlier speaker who said he himself was a selfish bastard.Rich (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess not. Smullyan wrote so much that it is difficult to assert with certainty that he never did, but it has been pointed out by others that his Taoist philosophical stance is incompatible with Rand's Objectivism. --Lambiam 12:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
January 18
"The Narrow Way" issued to prisoners in 1916
In his book 112 Days Hard Labour, about prison life in England in 1916, the Quaker Hubert Peet says:
- On entry one is given a Bible, Prayer Book, and Hymn Book. In the ordinary way these would be supplemented by a curious little manual of devotion entitled “The Narrow Way,” but at the Scrubs Quakers were mercifully allowed in its place the Fellowship Hymn Book and the Friends’ Book of Discipline.
What was this book The Narrow Way?
I thought the question would be easy to answer if the book was standard issue, but I haven't found anything. (Yes, I'm aware that the title is a reference to Matthew 7:14.) Marnanel (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Letters of a Prisoner for Conscience Sake - Page 54 (Corder Catchpool · 1941, via Google books) says "The Narrow Way , you must know , is as much a prison institution as green flannel underclothing ( awfu ' kitly , as Wee Macgregor would say ) , beans and fat bacon , superannuated “ duster " -pocket - handkerchiefs , suet pudding ... and many other truly remarkable things !" so it does seem to have been standard issue. TSventon (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Google Books finds innumerable publishers' adverts for The Narrow Way, Being a Complete Manual of Devotion, with a Guide to Confirmation and Holy Communion, compiled by E.B. Here's one. Many of them, of widely varying date, claim that the print run is in its two hundred and forty-fifth thousand. Here it's claimed that it was first published c. 1869, and Oxford University Libraries have a copy of a new edition from as late as 1942. Apart from that, I agree, it's remarkably difficult to find anything about it. --Antiquary (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
January 19
Federal death penalty
Is there a list of federal criminal cases where the federal government sought the death penalty but the jury sentenced the defendant to life in prison instead? I know Sayfullo Saipov's case is one, but I'm unsure of any others. wizzito | say hello! 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Official portraits of Donald Trump's first presidency
*grim**grin*Commons category Official portraits of Donald Trump (First presidency) only contains variations of the portrait with Donald Trump smiling. But Photographs of the official portrait of Donald Trump only contains photos incorporating Trump's official portrait with a vigorous facial expression, which is otherwise not even included in Commons?! This seems inconsistent - what is the background and status of either photo? --KnightMove (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: