Misplaced Pages

:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reference desk Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:17, 12 March 2014 editMedeis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,187 edits →Current events: Trial of Oscar Pistorius← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:40, 24 January 2025 edit undoAskedonty (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,486 edits →Marco Guidetti 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}}
]
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}}
]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
</noinclude>
]</noinclude>


= March 6 = = January 11 =
== Do some critical theorists disagree with critical pedagogy? ==


==JeJu AirFlight 2216 ==
Critical pedagogy relies on the framework of the critical theory; that is, freedom could not be associated with any organized societies, for freedom is the primacy of the individual. Critical pedagogy, however, appears to forget the central tenet of critical theory, because “domesticating” the term “critical” in organized education implicitly invalidates the meaning of the notion critical. In other words, according to Pais, “its meaning can be lost when inserted in social frames (like schools) that aim not at emancipation but reproduction”. So it makes sense to ask if there are other more known critical theorists who object to critical pedagogy. Do some critical theorists disagree with critical pedagogy, especially when critical pedagogy applies critical theory in math and science formal education?] (]) 02:30, 6 March 2014 (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 such thing as a premiss in "critical theory", which, like "philosophy" is just a generic term, in this case typically for theoretical models in the humanities. The debate about socially critical forms of pedagogy dates back to the disputes over ]'s theories of ]. ] (]) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? ] (]) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Is the European American population still growing? ==


::Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. ] (]) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Is the number of middle and upper class residents of First World countries still growing?


It says on[REDACTED] 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)
3. What about by natural increase, without needing the help of upward mobility or international migration?


:The aircraft type was launched in 1994, this particular aircraft entered service in 2009. It may have had an older type of recorder.
4. and 5. Same questions, but for the US.
: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)


Thanks. ] (]) 03:56, 6 March 2014 (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)
:It doesn't answer your questions directly, but you may find ] to be an interesting read. --]''''']''''' 10:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::The title of your question, about ], is specific to the United States. Your specific questions are somewhat impossible to answer, because there is no generally agreed bottom cut-off point for the middle class. In fact, there is no general agreement on the meaning of the term ''middle class''. On the other hand, the question in your title can be answered, if we assume that the category "European American" is equivalent to the category "white" as used by the U.S. Census Bureau. If it is, then according to , the answer to the question in your title is ''no'', as of 2008. As of that year (the most recent for which I could find data), the rate of natural increase for white Americans is slightly below the natural replacement rate, which means that, not counting net immigration, the native-born white population of the United States is very slowly shrinking. ] (]) 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


:...nor should it be, per ]. ]|] 10:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== A children's book series ==
::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 ==
There was this historical mystery book series for children whose name I'm forgetting. It has four child protagonists. There were also many installments, more than 30 I think. Ring any bells? --] (]) 11:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:If you can remember any other details, those would help. In particular, can you remember when in history the stories happened, where they were set, and the names/genders of the children? ] (]) 11:50, 6 March 2014 (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)
: ]? ] (]) 12:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Don't be mislead by the title, it was four children and a dog. ] (]) 13:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::If we're going with ] there were four child protagonists in ], but only 8 books were written. --] (]) 13:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
*]? Lots of books, but only 2 protagonists. --]''''']''''' 13:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


:You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ ] (]) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I think there were four child protagonists, or maybe five. There were many books, set in different countries and different time periods. Sounds weird, but one time I was really fascinated with them and wanted to read them. I also think the books were for older audience than Enid Blyton. They had very interesting historical contexts, see. I really wish I could remember more details but that's all I have.--] (]) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:]? --] 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:Or perhaps ], which has four protagonists but the time period doesn't vary much. --] 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::That's it! Thanks a lot. I probably got confused by some other book about that varying time period thing (I'm very forgetful). Thanks again! --] (]) 10:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


= January 12 =
== Do the Amish allow paintings instead of photography? ==


== Questions ==
It is known that the Amish doesn't allow photography. Do they allow paintings? Can "Englishers" paint portraits of the Amish, or is that a sin too? ] (]) 15:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


# Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU?
:There are ''many'' variations in Amish traditions. "Old order" Amish use horse-drawn buggies, but are allowed to use gas or diesel powered tools. "New order" Amish can drive cars, as long as they are black. Not ''all'' Amish disallow photography. Some congregations frown upon the use of ''mirrors'', while others don't. So-- I'm sure at least some Amish allow painted portraits, but some may well not. Also, note that many ] are ''not'' Amish, though sometimes "Amish" is used incorrectly as a catch-all. See ], ], ]. True Old Order Amish are increasingly rare. There tends to be "creep", wherein children raised in one sect tend to move to more liberal sects as they age. Sorry there is no easy answer, but there is a lot of complexity in this question. If you really mean one ''specific'' denomination, I might be able to find a specific reference. ] (]) 17:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
# Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries?
:Tḧe problem with Amish + photos is that posing for them is an act of pride, I doubt it's any better to let someone paint a portrait of you. However, they are less restrictive to unposed pictures, in a natural setting. There are plenty of pictures and videos of Amish that corroborate that's possible to do that. ] (]) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
# Why is Russia not in NATO?
::Some Amish, at least, don't mind if outsiders take pictures (for outsiders' use) of Amish people doing everyday activities. However, I think most Amish would object to sitting for "portraits" of any kind because doing so is an act of vanity at odds with the humility expected in their society. I think most Amish would object even more to displaying portraits of themselves, whether photographed or painted, because that shows even more vanity and immodesty than allowing the portrait to be made. ] (]) 19:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
# 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 ]
== Name for Middle-class in power? ==
::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)


How do you call it when the middle class is in power? ]? It wouldn't be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but more like a dictatorship of the petit bourguesie. ] (]) 17:59, 6 March 2014 (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)
:There is . ---] ] 18:30, 6 March 2014 (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)
::There's a link to an economist who coined the term ]. --]''''']''''' 01:57, 7 March 2014 (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)
:Who are the middle class in capitalism? Management: ] ] ] ] ]. A technical elite: ] ]. The petitsbourgeois: ] ]. Answer me who the middle class is and you might get a meaningful answer. ] (]) 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::] for a society where everyone is petty bourgeois. ] for a 20th century version of it (Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide). ] said it equated to "woman slavery". ] (]) 07:20, 7 March 2014 (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. ] (]) 06:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Movement/organization advocating people to not report their race/ethnicity ==


= January 13 =
I remember some years ago at a movie theater, there was a pre-trailer ad for some group that advocated for people to always put "don't wish to answer" or similar on any survey which asks for their race/ethnicity. Then it had some URL to go to for more information. Does anybody remember this and is this movement still going? -- ] <font color="138808">~</font><font color="602F6B" size="3">✿</font><font color="138808">~</font> (]) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


== reference behind ] ==
:You didn't specify a country, but in the U.S. ] and some others advocated for that in 2010, even though the U.S. census has been collecting such information every 10 years since 1790... ] (]) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::The fact that Bachmann would support it automatically makes it suspect. But in general, what would be the reasoning behind that idea? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:I think the idea was to do it as a protest against collecting racial and ethnic statistics, and/or move towards a ] society. And, yes, it was in the US.-- ] <font color="138808">~</font><font color="602F6B" size="3">✿</font><font color="138808">~</font> (]) 03:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|The OP asked to identify the movement, not for our opinion on the movement}}
:::It seems as a well-meant, but ill-conceived movement, if they meant to not disclose the information not even in the census. Knowing about the income, distribution, age, education (and so on) of different ethnic groups can be invaluable soemtimes. A different thing would be to be asked at a job interview (which I have never seen, BTW). ] (]) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes, but some people have good reason to be suspicious of the invaluable uses ethnicity data will be put to. As a hypothetical, if the census data on populations is used to decide distribution of education resources, and you are concerned about institutional racism in the provision of education, then you might feel that encouraging people not to report their ethnicity will lead to more equitable provision of education. ] (]) 06:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


from Season 4 Episode 12 of the West Wing:
:::::Always treat everyone equally, and race becomes irrelevant, as it should be. This sounds like a good movement. ] (]) 06:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, that approach fails to detect when a particular grouping is being disadvantaged in some way, or not being reached by a service of some kind. That is the ''raison d'être'' of ethnic monitoring. ] (]) 13:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Additionally, it is beyond insulting to say "race is irrelevant", which means "my culture is the only one that matters, so long as you abandon your culture and follow mine, I acknowledge you, however, I'm going to ignore anything that isn't my culture" Instead, race and other cultural groups should be ''recognized and accepted on their own terms''. Other cultures are not irrelevant to the people that live in them. They are very relevant to them. --]''''']''''' 13:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I think you are mixing race with culture and ethnicity. I don't think anyone would argue that culture or ethnicity are irellevant, but race really should be. -- ] (]) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Race ''is'' a cultural/ethnic concept. Unless you mean "skin color", and insofar as people from an ethnicity share can often share similar skin colors, such factors certainly play a role in cultural and ethnic identity, so cannot be ignored as though they didn't. --]''''']''''' 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::All of this is debate, and none of it helps in answering the OP's question. --] (]) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}


They all begin to exit.
= March 7 =


BARTLET
== Writers born in and writers who lived in Louisiana ==
Maxine.


C.J.
Who were the well-known writers that were born in Louisiana? Who were the well-known writers that lived in Louisiana? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
That's you.
:See ]. --]''''']''''' 01:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::That category is a mish-mash, including a lot of names of persons who are only marginally writers, or only marginally from Louisiana. For example, ] is usually associated with Texas, not Louisiana, and ] with Tennessee, even if his most famous novel is set in Louisiana; ] was born in New Orleans, but his most famous books are set in ]. Among those whose connection to the state are not under question, most famous are (in alphabetical order) ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. --] (]) 15:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


JOSH
== website that compares the languages Turkic ==
I know.


Leo, C.J., and Toby leave.
Is there a website that shows a sentence in English and then translates into different Turkic languages like Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tatar and other existing Turkic languages like for example "I am black", "I am twenty-three years old" and etc? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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)
: See the answers given to three parallel questions on the Language desk. —] (]) 09:12, 7 March 2014 (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.) ] (]) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Grand Budapest Hotel ==


: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)
There are presently numerous press items quoting film director ] about the influence on "]" of the 1920s and '30s Viennese world of playwright and author ]. Which of the author's works might we read for some background, in advance of seeing ] that's due to open soon (and probably close soon after) in ]? ''-- ] (]) 11:42, 7 March 2014 (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. &nbsp;--] 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:'']'' and '']'' are mentioned in . ---] ] 12:26, 7 March 2014 (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 can Christians only claim affiliation to one church? ==


== Ministerial confirmation hearings ==
Some Christians claim they are Methodist. Some Christians claim they are Catholic. Some Christians claim they are Orthodox. Some Christians claim they are Lutheran. Some Christians claim they are Quaker. Some Christians claim they are Amish. Et cetera. Why are they mutually exclusive? What if a person only takes part of the teachings from one denomination (i.e. the Amish teaching that following the Bible does not guarantee salvation and weighty emphasis on humility and simplicity) and only takes part of the teachings from another denomination (i.e. Lutheranism but only four Solae, because the person may prefer the Roman Catholic view of ''prima scriptura''). ] (]) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:People can claim whatever affiliation they want. Your beliefs are your own, whatever anyone else's opinion. For acceptance into these individual denominations, however, you usually need to demonstrate your loyalty to it, sometimes by a simple statement or profession of faith, sometimes by elaborate ritual like baptism. Sometimes the denomination will expressly forbid participation in another. If you are an "independent" worshiper or believer (that is, you believe in God and Jesus but don't go to church), you can pretty much do whatever you want. ] (]) 16:53, 7 March 2014 (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)
: In terms of private belief, there is no reason why a Christian can't hold beliefs from different strains of Christianity, and no doubt some Christians do this. In terms of church membership, however, a person cannot, for example, belong to the Roman Catholic church without either accepting the church's dogma in its entirety or risking a charge of ] and ]. Some Orthodox and Protestant churches impose similar requirements of doctrinal adherence. In some Protestant churches, it might be possible to adhere to beliefs from other Christian traditions without a risk of expulsion, but even then, if a person were to share those heterodox beliefs with their pastor, the pastor might impose pressure on the congregant to conform, since one of the premises of Christian church membership and worship in most Christian churches is adherence to a shared body of beliefs. The main exceptions, to my knowledge, are ] and ], who welcome people with a wide range of beliefs. (Not all Unitarians, however, consider themselves Christian, and some Christians consider all Unitarians non-Christian.) ] (]) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


:No individual grilling sessions, but ] the Knesset has to approve the prime minister's choices. ]&nbsp;] 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ec}}It's not merely Christianity. In ], if you're ], you're not ], and vice-versa. In Judaism, if you're ], you're not ] or ] (and if you're Orthodox, you may or may not be ]). Buddhism and Hinduism are a bit more open, but what's true and acceptable for the ]pa will get you thrown out of the ]pa, and possibly prompt a ] school to have a restraining order put on you; and a California ] commune would still call the police if they saw a practicing ].
:Sometimes, the differences are philosophical ones that cannot be reconciled. Most Reformed Churches teach ] predestination and ] as official doctrines, both of which simply cannot be reconciled with the Catholic Church's teachings on ] free will and ].
:Sometimes, the differences are a matter of practice. I like stain glass windows in a sanctuary, maybe some icons and even the occasional statue, but some other Christians think all that's heathen, and want bare walls in their church. My granddad's church has their "worship center" (not a sanctuary, by their own admission) set up like a concert hall, which some might regard as modernist materialism, letting the corporate media drown out the message so that people worship the media rather than who the message points to.
:There are some denominations that are generally open to cross-denominational members. The Baptist church I grew up in had a number of members who identified as Episcopalians, Methodists, and I think a few Presbyterians. The local ] wouldn't mind at all if I joined and continued to refer to myself as a "Zen Baptist Humanist." ] (]) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


== Is an occupied regime a country? ==
:Why won't they give me a ] when I eat at McDonald's? ](]) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


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)
:As has already been pointed out, one can claim any belief. Pi in ] is an adherent of three religions. Strictly speaking, one can claim to be an adherent of any church too. The problem here is only whether or not those churches will claim to accept YOU into their flock. The main reason why one church would not accept you to be part of another church would be if that church denies the teachings of your church. For example, the word "protestant" comes from "protesting against the catholic church". Therefore, the catholic church has very specific rules against accepting anyone to also be protestant. ] (]) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::<small>Square peg, round hole. ], ], and "Jesus may have been one of many ]s of Vishnu" are all rather opposing views. About the only way to confuse thing more would be to throw in the ].</small> ] (]) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:::<small>Confucianism, Taoism, Chinese Mahayana Buddhism and Shintoism aren't mentioned here. Or the syncretism of African religions and Neo-Pentecostalism. ] (]) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
::::<small>I mentioned Zen, earlier, which started off as the Chan school in China, and is a branch of Mahayana. Many of the Chinese Buddhist schools were quite distinct from the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist schools, rejecting a great deal of tantra and placing more emphasis on logic. Taoism had its own apocalyptic works, such as Nuqing Guilu, which was quite clear that Taoism is the one true religion and other religions are demon worship; and this attitude allowed it to become a driving force behind the ]. Whether or not Confucianism is classified as a religion or as a philosophy is a matter of debate, even among Confucians. Mainstream Shinto does differentiate itself from offshoots such as ]. Folk religions, regardless of region, can be syncretist, but usually borrow from more organized religions that would not encourage such mixture. ] (]) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::::{{ping|Ian.thomson}} I see only a few search returns for the Nuqing Guilu, but it sounds like an interesting work - do you know a link for it? I think there is a big contradiction in our modern-day attitude of saying that ]s are real but demons are not, so a work that purports to offer methods of fighting demons seems worthy of a glance. ] (]) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Wnt}} Unfortunately, I only have secondary sources, that uh, fell off the back of a truck. For an ], Routledge has a big-mass two volume encyclopedia on Taoism that describes it some (I can't remember if it has its own entry or if it was described in the entries on demons and apocalypticism). Unless you're living in or near China, it'd probably be less exciting because most of the demons are rather tied to specific locales. If you're just reading casually, you might be interested in the works of Jerry A. Johnson, a American Taoist priest (no, really) who's written quite a bit on Taoist religious and magical practices (I would not stop someone else from citing his works, but I would not do so myself). And if your interest in demons extends beyond China, ] for the ] and ]. ] (]) 03:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


:Are you talking about a ]? ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Many churches have membership. That is you sign up and and are on the books of one particular congregation of one particular denomination. To become a member you have to agree to certain doctrinal and sometimes financial obligations and as a member you gain certain privileges (voting, financial, etc.) If you move, you need request your membership be transferred to another congegration. If that new congregation is in another denomination, there may be extra steps to have your membership accepted. In these churches you can only be a member of one denomination so would only ever identify yourself as one type of Christian. ] (]) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (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)
::] {{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.) ]&nbsp;] 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I assumed that everyone was referring to independent countries. I think this is exactly what the question is about. Our article says Taiwan is part of China. China is a country. So, Taiwan is part of a country and not a country by itself. But, the article says it is a country. So, it is independent. It isn't part of China. Which is true? Both? ] (]) 20:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Our article says Taiwan is part of China." Where does it say that? --] (]) (]) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (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. &nbsp;--] 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)
*To give an example, rather than generalities. A Roman Catholic can celebrate full mass with communion and so forth at any Catholic church in communion with the pope: ], ], etc. He can attend any Christian service he likes, but he can't participate in the sacraments (no communion) or make any statement of faith like their version of the ] that contradicts the Catholic Church. ''I.e.,'' they should mostly stand silent. 1f Catholicism is ''attacked'' they shouldn't attend. Attending Jewish ceremonies is difficult. Jews have an area for gentiles to observe. The ] is offensive to Christians, and a reason not to attend if recited. (Hearing it caused a woman I know to break of an engagement.) Attending Hindu or Muslim ceremonies, for example, would be very problematic--you'd have to ask your Bishop, who'll want to know if you'd be condoning an attack on the church (e.g., Islam) or participating in forbidden worship (e.g., Hindu). As for affiliation, Catholics are required to belong to a local parish church (of their Father's denomination if the differ in rites), and the parish church will necessarily be of one denomination/rite within Catholicism. ] (]) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (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.
:: For "Assyrian Catholic", do you mean ]? ] (]) 19:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
:::From the article: "the modern Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with any other churches, either Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Catholic."
:::I assume Medeis was referring to the ], maybe the ]. ] (]) 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::{{+1}}
:::::Come on, people, I was confirmed at baptism, and baptized as a swaddling, as is cromulent in the Byzantine rite. My father's the one who was risen by West Catholic Jesuits, he knows this stuff. ] (]) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (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)
== Borrowing against a 401K ==
: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)
{{resolved}}
::To further complicate the issue with Taiwan... When the United States had a trade ban with China, most of the cheap goods shipped into the United States had a "Made in Taiwan" sticker. That was OK because hte United States recognized Taiwan as being completely separate from China. It was a bit odd that Taiwan could produce as much as it did. The reality is that they simply made "Made in Taiwan" stickers and put them on Chinese goods before sending them to the United States. When the trade ban was lifted, there was no need to route all the goods through Taiwan. Now, everything has "Made in China" stickers on them and the United States no longer recognizes Taiwan as an independent country. From a simplistic point of view, it appears that the recognition of status was based on convenience rather than political standing. ] (]) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I've heard it said that when you borrow against a ] that you're paying yourself the interest. Can someone explain that to me? <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 16:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::When you borrow from a 401k, you are required to repay the loan with interest. Since you will collect any amounts you repay after retirement, you are in fact paying interest to yourself. ] (]) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:::The bank doesn't take any of that for providing the loan? <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::The bank isn't providing any money. You are drawing against your deposits. There may be fees involved. ] (]) 18:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::This is one of those questions we can't answer because of the legal implications involved. Ask a lawyer or your fund manager. ] (]) 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::It can be answered and it was. I wasn't asking for myself but in more of a general sense which is just exactly what everyone but you seems to have read. Again. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


== Kingdom of Hawaii last survivor == == 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.
Who was the last surviving person to have witness the ] or were connected to ] (last former citizens)?--] (]) 16:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:That's actually an interesting question and one I am not sure actually has an answer. Because this pertains to who witnessed the overthrow or may have been alive to understand what was happening and survive longer than anyone else from that period, it may be nearly impossible to answer. Now, who was the last surviving person of note "involved" may be a little easier to answer but still very difficult because not everyone who may have been involved has been fully recognized. This period in history is very difficult to unearth but, I suppose one could simply look to all peoples listed in the numerous documents and see who was the last man or woman standing but still may not be truly accurate.--] (]) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


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)
== Parliament of USA? ==


If anyone's interested, the novel is '']'' by ]. -- ] </sup></span>]] 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Does the USA have a similar kind of parliament that pretty much all northern, western and central European countries do, among a lot of others? If not, what body performs the same function? How do USAn politics work compared to, say, Canadian, British, German, Swedish or Finnish politics? ] &#124; ] 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


:IIRC ''Loving Monsters'' by James Hamilton-Patterson has some photos in it. ] (]) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:USA has a ], as do Canada, UK, etc. But USA's legislature is a ], not a ]. See also ] and ]. One key distinction (from the final link): {{cquote|A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly: the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature. }}
:Does that clear it up? ] (]) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


:'']'' by ], 1892. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::It clears things up somewhat. It says that in a presidential system, the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature, and apparently isn't accountable to it either. I don't think it still means that the executive branch is free to dictate any laws it wants to just like that, right? At least the president himself can't do that. It's also interesting to see that apart from Mexico and a bunch of other North American countries (except Canada), the USA is pretty much the only fully presidential republic in what one would call the "]". This is excluding South America, which is geographically in the western hemisphere. ] &#124; ] 18:01, 7 March 2014 (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)
::::]s, you mean? ]&nbsp;] 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It was assumed that we are talking about adult fiction, yes. --] 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::I found , a "bibliography of works of fiction and poetry... containing embedded photographs". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 =
::{{ec}}As for how it works, since I haven't taken any civics courses on other nations, I'll just give an overview of how it's supposed to work:
::Congress is divided into the the House of Representatives (one per so many people) and the Senate (two senators per state). Each election, people vote for a senator (every six years) and a representative (every two years). Pretty much any citizen can suggest a bill to either their representative or senator, who probably modifies it, and puts it before whichever house they belong to (representatives or the Senate). They argue about it, amend the bill to appease everyone, and then either pass it or drop it. It then goes to the other house (HoR to the Senate, and vice versa), where it's argued about and amended further, possibly killed, but maybe passed there. If there are substantial changes, it may be kicked back to the first house, until both sides agree on something. Then the President gets the chance to pass it or veto it (in which case Congress has to get a two-thirds majority to pass it instead of a regular majority). Then a citizen or group of citizens can go to court over the law (maybe because they were arrested under it, maybe because they sued the state). If the case gets to the Supreme court, they can declare it unconstitutional and illegal, thereby nullifying it (or at least preventing the law from being enforced).
::Every four years, the President is elected, not directly by the people, but by the electoral college, which consists of Congress. There is a popular vote because many congresspersons do go with their constituents' will even if it's against party lines (e.g. a Republican may represent an area that voted Democrat, and he may put his vote in for the Democratic presidential candidate).
::The President, pretty much at any time, can appoint judges (though there has to be some congressional approval). This usually doesn't happen unless one of them dies or steps down, though.
::All this forms the system of checks and balances, i.e. congress, the President, and the Supreme court all have ways to stop the other branches of government from screwing up too badly.
::This is under ideal conditions, and does not reflect the role lobbyists, special interest groups, career politicians, the media, ], voter suppression, and the myth of voter fraud affect things.
::As for how people can come to be elected into those offices, it's a complicated mess even under ideal descriptions. ] (]) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:::That is not how the electoral college works. Electors are not U.S. Congressmen but party electors. See ]. Congress only gets involved when the electoral college can't make a choice. ] (]) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Indeed "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." (Article II section 1.) —] (]) 05:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


== Refusing royal assent ==
*The difference in the U.S. is that the U.S. has a clear ] which includes a series of "checks and balances" between the three branches of government. The U.S. government is organized into three branches:
**Legislative Branch (Congress) passes laws by voting on legislation
**Executive Branch (The ] and the ] headed by the ]) is responsible for enacting the laws passed by Congress. That is, congress says what the U.S. government is to do, it is the executive's role to ''do it''
**Judicial Branch (the court system headed by the ]) interprets the law and enforces violations of it.
*Thus each branch has a narrowly defined role. There's often considerable bickering between branches, however, as to how the legal apparatus works. For example, by its role of ], the courts have the ability to invalidate a law which violates the ]. Courts do, at times, interpret the constitution different ways, sometimes confining their rulings to the explicit text, and other time basing their rulings on implied Constitutional principles like ]. This leads to accusations of "]", especially from Congress which doesn't like to have its laws invalidated. Likewise, though it is the executive branch's role to enact the laws that Congress passes, they have CONSIDERABLE leeway in enacting those laws, and they may at times alter or change the intent of a law (or even completely ignore it). So there's a constant tension between the branches as they negotiate their roles within the system. If you really want to know how the U.S. government is designed to work, the ] really do a good job explaining and justifying and providing rationales for how the U.S. system was set up. --]''''']''''' 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


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.
::And of the Federalist Papers, ] is probably the most important read to understand the basic set up of the U.S. federal government and how it works. --]''''']''''' 19:07, 7 March 2014 (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)
::<small>No, it's the Executive Branch that enforces violations of the law. The Judicial Branch only ratifies them. —] (]) 08:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)</small>


: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)
:The biggest difference, to my mind, is in the ], which is much more pronounced in the US than in Sweden. In Sweden, for example, on votes on one color/flower/party, and that is it. The winning party gets seats in Parliament in accordance with the votes they get. The Prime minister is normally simply the party leader of the largest party. In effect, he holds relatively more power than the president, since he often is both the chief executive and leads the main party, and especially powerful if the party has more than 50 percent of the votes. In the US, the president has a lot less to say about which laws are passed, since the congress and senate are voted on separately. Even if congress, senate and president happen all to be of the same party and that party is in dominance, the US president can not get laws passed as easily as the Swedish Prime Minister can get laws passed in Parliament. ] (]) 19:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::There is one small flaw in the above explanation: Sweden does not have a president, but a king. But if you substitute my own home country Finland for Sweden, then the above should apply to at least some degree. (There is even the difference that, to my understanding, the King of Sweden has no political power whatsoever, but is purely a ceremonial figurehead, whereas the President of Finland has some small traces of political power remaining.) ] &#124; ] 19:59, 7 March 2014 (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:
:So, according to my understanding, the congress is like the parliament in European countries, and the cabinet is like the government, and the president is like the president (but not like the King of Sweden, who doesn't get to actually decide anything). The judicial branch seems somewhat like the same in both systems. There are of course differences between what powers each branch actually holds, but I guess the overall analogy is like this. I, of course, am but a layman - I should ask my stepbrother, as he has currently a minor career in Finnish politics. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:* (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)
:::I am aware that we have a King here in Sweden, JIP, and that he is irrelevant to any discussion about our government. In Sweden, the Prime minister is the one with the power. The point that I am making is that in most cases, since the separation of power is weaker in Sweden, the prime minister has a lot more say in Swedish matters than the President of the US does in US matters.
A more interesting comparison might be to compare the US to the EU, and its respective states to each other. The Swedish population is only the size of Georgia, in both cases, most of its laws are dictated in another place, Washington and Strasbourg respectively, and in both countries the interest in voting participation to that central authority is low, despite the the number of laws passed there. European states do have some things that sets them apart, namely culture, language and the option of leaving the union, but in legal matters, I think the grand scale comparison is more interesting today. ] (]) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, and it's the same situation here in Finland. Although the President of Finland has some small traces of political power left, in practice the main power is on the Prime Minister. In fact, there have been discussions in Finland whether we even need the whole president any more. ] &#124; ] 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


:::There is the ability to delegate powers to ]. There are restrictions on what powers can be delegated in section 6(1) of the ], but I don't see anything prohibiting the monarch from delegating the power to grant Royal Assent. He could then temporarily absent himself from the UK (perhaps on an impromptu trip to another Commonwealth Realm) so that the Counsellors of State could grant such Assent during his absence. ] ] 15:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:One of the most interesting cases of separation of power might be in South Africa, where they really seem to have taken separation of power seriously, by having three capitals. Pretoria (executive capital), Bloemfontein (judicial capital) and Cape Town (legislative capital) to make sure that they do not interfere with each other. This is a far cry from Sweden, where in the past I have felt that the term "Monarch", in the original sense of the word - Only One Person Rules - should really have been applied to the elected Prime minister of Sweden. ] (]) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


== Fratelli Gianfranchi ==
::From a Swedish perspective, where there is a powerful prime minister and a king with no real power, here is how the US system is different: The US president has some, but not all of the powers of the prime minister as well as the symbolic role of the Swedish king. Like the Swedish king, the U.S. president is the symbolic leader of the nation and is the one who meets with kings or queens on foreign visits as the head of the US state. Like the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president is the head of the government. The U.S. president appoints all of the cabinet officials, and all of the heads of government departments (I think known as ministers in Sweden). The president, with his department heads, sets government policies for the application of laws, but cannot himself make laws. One of the president's greatest powers is control of the military. The president can order the military into action almost without effective limitation. However, unlike the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president does not control the U.S. law-making body, known as Congress. The president cannot introduce bills into the legislature for passage as laws. Only a member of Congress can do that. Only Congress can formally declare war, but in fact the United States has been involved in a number of undeclared wars due to the president's ability to command the military without the need for approval by Congress. The president may be able to use his influence to get laws passed, but even his own party members are not required or even fully expected to do as the president wishes. The U.S. president may veto, or reject, laws passed by Congress, but Congress may override the president's veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. So the system is very different from a parliamentary one in which parliament is supreme. In the U.S. system, there is a separation of powers among three branches of government (legislative (Congress), executive (president), and judicial (courts)), such that each of the three branches is able to limit the power of the others and, ideally, prevent abuses of power. This is what is known as the system of "checks and balances". ] (]) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


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.
:::In Sweden, most suggestions of law come from the "riksdagen" (corresponding approx to congress) , but these are almost all rejected, much to the dismay of "riksdagen". Instead, the suggestions of law that actually passed (about 97%) come from "regeringen" (approx cabinet), where the Prime Minister sits with those he has appointed to help him. "Riksdagen" is still the place where these laws are formally passed. ] (]) 22:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 15:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The third part of the separation of power is judicial. Sweden does not even have ], and its Supreme Court does not handle constitutional matters. ] (]) 22:26, 7 March 2014 (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 =
:German, France and Italy have implemented clear separations of power, whereas Canada, Britain and New Zealand have muddier separation of power. Instead of separation of power, the latter three have each implemented less formal systems of checks and balances. ] (]) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (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.
*]'s answer above is a excellent one. I would simply clarify that given the exigencies of modern warfare Congress has seen fit to pass various ]s which authorize the President to use force under specific situations for a limited time and subject to his making reports to the Congress and their review. Politically, it has been almost impossible for the Congress not to back presidential military action since the Carter and Reagan administrations. GWB famously sought congressional permission for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not declarations of war. Obama's claim in Libya was that we weren't actually in hostilities, so he didn't even need to report to Congress.


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)
JIP's question seems to imply that "pretty much all northern, western and central European countries" each have similar political systems to each other when compared to the US. But they are not very similar. The one thing that is similar is that most are part of the EU, and therefore their politics are largely decided elsewhere. ] (]) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:We don't answer questions like that here. You should engage a lawyer. --] 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, I don't think the EU compares remotely to the US federal government. The EU is still a relatively loose union; I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that the policies of its member states are largely decided at the EU level.
:Chapter 15 bankruptcy does cover individuals and does include processes for people who are foreign citizens. ] (]) 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:In the US, while it's true that most of the laws that directly regulate individual-to-individual relations are at the state level, federal law is nevertheless extremely important. For example, in almost all cases, your federal tax bill is substantially higher than your state tax bill, and the social insurance plans for the elderly (Social Security and Medicare) are at the federal level. The EU really has nothing like that. --] (]) 10:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you for this reply. I am annoyed when people claim that the EU is a tightly-coupled federal nation just like the US. It's not even a nation at all, but a union between independent nations. ] &#124; ] 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Most Europeans get annoyed by such claims. Usually such claims are born out of ignorance. The EU is not tightly coupled and it is certainly not a nation. Not all have the same currency, they all have their own military force, EU does not have any federal institutions, each state can all leave the EU whenever they want. The list goes on. But on a purely legislation-based perspective 70% of the local legal decisions made by the local council the city where I live are EU-related, either directly or indirectly, and most people in my city do not have a clue about this, or even what kind of laws are decided where at what level, city, state or higher. ] (]) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::It would be interesting to compare how large the corresponding proportion of laws were local and nation-wide in some large city and state within the USA , just as a comparison. ] (]) 13:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


= January 17 =
::::Many people in the U.S. (especially the ''Southern'' U.S.) say the same of this country - that it is a union of independent states. After all, the actual constitution is written that way. See ] and ]. ] (]) 02:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


== Raymond Smullyan and Ayn Rand ==
:::::Didn't the Constitution give all outward facing powers to the US? Germany can still make treaties, run their own nuclear weapons and wage war. New Jersey cannot. ] (]) 05:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::: About Germany. Essentially, that is correct. I know this is nitpicking, but there would be a number of limitations: 1 Germany does not have their own nuclear weapons. Technically, I think they are still forbidden to have nuclear weapons. NATO has nuclear weapons in Germany. 2 If Germany wanted to make alliances and declare a war it would first have to contend with some restrictions on this set by ] and NATO. 3. It is hard to see a situation today where Germany would want to declare war without NATO. Some other EU members are not part of NATO, some are less restricted by ] (but that will pass), and some have more scenarios where war might be more probable, like England, Greece and Turkey. ] (]) 10:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::<small>Why did I pick the "most important" EU state? My next choice would've been France.</small> I thought England was not really a country. Unless they cecede, or Wales and Northern Ireland follow what Scotland might and cecede, leaving England alone. I'm not even sure if this is legal. ] (]) 14:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::] is both a ] and a ], but not an independent ]. ] is a country and a state, but its claim to be a nation is more shaky and is why people go on about WW2 (because it is basically the founding myth of Britain as a nation). ] might have helpful information. But England cannot go to war by itself: in this case, refering to England when people mean Britain is like calling the Netherlands 'Holland'. ] (]) 20:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


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)
::::::::I should have written the UK. I belong to generation so old that most people used "England" when they spoke of Great Britain or the UK, a time when even the Scots I knew would not get offended by that. ] (]) 21:16, 9 March 2014 (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> &nbsp;--] 12:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I did some digging. The German constitution forbids Germany to declare war. It was clear when I read the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/Kriegserkl%C3%A4rung that it could not, but I now have more sources and details about it. I read all the[REDACTED] articles in all the languages on the subject, and they were abysmally unclear on the subject for the vast majority of countries. At least the case is crystal clear for the US, Elizabeth II and Japan. The more I dig, the more countries I find that can not formally declare war today because it would be illegal for them to do so. ] (]) 10:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


= January 18 =
::::: The Declaration of Independence and the ''first'' constitution (the Articles of Confederation) are written in terms of an alliance of sovereign states, but where is such language in the second Constitution (that of 1787)? —] (]) 08:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Right, the original ] set up the USA as a loose coalition of independent states. That did '''not''' work out well, which is why the new Constitution was drafted & ratified, giving the Federal government power over interstate commerce, international treaties and taxation. The country still ran a bit loose for quite some time, but our Civil War solidified the Federal government's power in those matters. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::: One ought to specify '''for whom''' it did not work out well. —] (]) 07:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


== "The Narrow Way" issued to prisoners in 1916 ==
== Current events: Bridgegate ==


In his book '''', about prison life in England in 1916, the Quaker Hubert Peet says:
Here is something I don't understand about the ]. Some individuals are being asked (or ordered) to turn over documents. Some of these individuals are refusing to do so, under the "self-incrimination" protections of the US Constitution. See, for example, this article: . So, here is my question. Isn't it true that any documents created by a government employee (during the course of their employment) is property of the government? And not property of that individual employee? I assume this is the case. So, what exactly is at issue in a case like Bridgegate? Are they asking for ''other'' (non-governmental) documents, emails, texts, etc., that the employee did at home, away from the office (i.e., outside of work)? They shouldn't have to request the documents created at work, as they belong to the government; they do not belong to the individual employee. So, can someone clear this up for me? Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (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.
:You are basically looking at ]. Government agents argue that they don't have to turn over "work product" they themselves have created. That doesn't extend to subpoenaing someone else who has the records in question. NJ state law may differ on this. And I don't think there's any settled federal law on this doctrine, since it has been used explicitly as recently as Clinton, if not more recently. (Looking at our article, GWB and Obama have both evidently used the doctrine.) ] (]) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


What was this book ''The Narrow Way''?
:: Thanks. I guess I didn't word my question properly. So, for now, let's ignore the ''reasons'' for which someone might not hand over the documents. I'd like to focus on ownership. My question is: who exactly holds ownership of the documents? In other words, who do they belong to? Do they belong to the government? Do they (in this case) belong to the people of the state of New Jersey? Does the creator (employee) own them? Does a specific branch of the government own them? Thanks. ] (]) 23:19, 7 March 2014 (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)
:::I don't want to be making stuff up, but typically they would belong to the State of New Jersey (with the states being the sovereign entities involved) or the individual if it is a private communication made not using government property, like a state issued blackberry. Would the call of a governor directly calling his wife to tell her he'll be home late be "owned" by the state? Presumably the record of the call would be, but I doubt any court would require him to divulge the contents of what was said.


: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)
:::In this specific case the emails were archived and discovered. I know Federal law requires corporations to maintain databases of official emails. That law may or may not apply to the states (I suspect it doesn't) but the state itself is likely to have such a law.


: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)
:::"Communication" is such a broad issue, that asking who "owns" a communication which we don't even know if it was made orally or written or electronically is going to be hugely problematic, and goes back to issues of work product (was it campaign-related or duty-related) and so forth. The primary principles to keep in mind are that the state is sovereign, so the state will ultimately control waht it pays for. How such control is exercised (the legislatures keeping their own minutes) and what actually gets recorded are two more concrete difficulties. ] (]) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::You can for £5.99. ] (]) 15:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{small|Fun fact: a copy of ''The Narrow Way'' figures in ]'s novel '']''. ] (]) 22:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}


= January 19 =
:::: I'm sorry, but I guess I am still stumped. I don't see how a public official (e.g., a state governmental employee) can say "I know that this item is the property of the State. It is not my property. It belongs to the State. It does not belong to me. Nonetheless, I refuse to hand over this property that does not belong to me in the first place, and belongs to the State". I am just stumped by this logic or line of thinking. Thanks. ] (]) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


== Federal death penalty ==
:::::But if no one else knows of the existence of the document? There is no foolproof system of government. It requires ] with interests no based in ]. That's the reason for a ], ], ], ], and a ]. ] (]) 05:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


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. ] &#124; ] 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== Current events: Trial of Oscar Pistorius==


== Official portraits of Donald Trump's first presidency ==
Here is a copy of Oscar Pistoruis's . To ], I would like to know where – exactly – you see any speculation whatsoever in my original question. Thanks. ] (]) 12:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


{{multiple image
I have a question about the ]. His story is that he thought he was shooting at an intruder/burglar who was hiding in the bathroom. Here is his chronology of events: He was in his bedroom; he thought that his girlfriend was also there in bed, with him. (He didn't know that it was the girlfriend who left the bedroom and went to the bathroom.) So, he goes to the bathroom and shoots at what he thinks is a burglar but in fact is his girlfriend. So, according to his story, did he say ''why'' he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. What reason did he give? Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"? Thanks. ] (]) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
| image1 = 20170607-OSEC-PJK-0061 (34770550600).jpg
| alt1 = Yellow cartouche
| width1 = 413
| caption1 = *grim*
| 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)


:The framed portraits hanging on the wall in these photos are an official portrait from December 15, 2016, of the then president-elect.<sup></sup> The one with bared teeth is from October 6, 2017, when Trump was in office.<sup></sup> For two more recent official mug shots, look . &nbsp;--] 12:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*Closing per ]. Do NOT ask for speculation. If you want a source for a fact or a quote, add it outside the hat, please. ] (]) 22:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::Ok, thank you. Do you know why the president-elect photo is not even uploaded in Commons? Shouldn't it be included in ]? --] (]) 16:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The most plausible reason that it was not uploaded is that no one missed it. Among those aware of its existence and having the wherewithal to find it on the Web and to upload it to the Commons, no one may have realized it had not already been uploaded. Or they may not have felt a need; there is no shortage of images in the relevant articles.
:::Strictly speaking, it does not belong in ], as Trump was not yet president. However, ] features nothing but lugubrious portraits of the president-reelect. &nbsp;--] 22:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


= January 20 =
:: Re-opening.
:: Joseph asked for a fact: ''... '''did he say ''why''''' he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. '''What reason did he give?''' Or '''did he just say something generic like''', "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"?''.
:: Absolutely no speculation involved there. If these things have been reported, we can report them here without breaching BLP in any way. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


== Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin ==
::: Thanks, Jack. Exactly. I am asking about a fact ''that happened in the past''. (Most likely, within the formal document that Pistoruis had to offer at the beginning of the investigation a full year ago.) How that involves speculation, I have no idea. How that invokes BLP, I have no idea. And, in fact, since all of this is happening in an open court, it's probably public information anyway. ] (])
:::: I have no idea about the BLP thing either but I've learnt to just let it slide rather than worrying my pretty head about it. Had you asked "Did he intend to kill Reeva?", that would have been a problem. But you clearly didn't. You chose your words carefully, as always. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
*Again, closing editorial commentary outside the courtroom. The OP has asked a non-speculative question below. ] (]) 23:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:: Again, re-opening. Exactly where is there any speculation? And about what, exactly? -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 00:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, Jack, this is not talk space. The ref desk is required to offer sources just like article space for BLP, and the OP himself has reworded the question. ] (]) 05:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::::: Thanks, again. In essence, my question could be re-phrased as something along the lines of "What did Pistorius say on June 5, 2013 (or whatever date his statement was presented to the court)?". ] (]) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::I can't find that specifically, but may address some of your questions about why-this and why-that. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::: There were no questions asked about "why" anything. They were all about "what" he gave as reasons. The whole point of the trial is to gauge whether those stated reasons were in fact why he did it. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, the point of the trial is to determine whether the evidence squares with his story or version of how it happened - or vice versa. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::And in fact , linked within ], would likewise seem to answer the OP's questions - particularly, why did he enter the bathroom. e says a feeling of dread came over him, and he shot through the door of the stall. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: I think you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that he shot her. He claims he was shooting what he thought was a burglar behind a door, but the prosecution maintains he knew full well whom he was shooting. That's the issue. If everyone accepted what he said about why he pulled the trigger, there would be nothing to have any trial about. Joseph is asking '''what he said'''; in a case like this, whether that is really and truly "why" he did it or not is very much the question to be settled by the court. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::"What he said" has been covered. He said he shot while standing on his stumps, as he had not taken the time to attach his blades because he was kind of in panic mode because somehow he thought there was a burglar in the bathroom. He fired through the door, yelled at his housemate to call 911, and discovered to his horror that it wasn't a burglar, it was his housemate. That's his story. The police analysis is (or was) that he was, in fact, standing on his blades. If they demonstrate that claim, then it tends to erode the credibility of his story. If they fail to demonstrate that, then it tends to improve the credibility of his story. But that's his story. The OP needs to read the links in that article and here, and tell us whether he has further questions or if it's clear now. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


I am trying to find the illustration’s description from the original source: ''Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin'' including species name and description for these sea anemones: https://www.arsvalue.com/it/lotti/541811/contarini-nicolo-bertolucci-1780-1849-trattato-delle-attinie-ed-osservazio . I requested it on the resource request page but was not able to find where in the source these illustrations are or where their descriptions are. It doesn’t help that I can’t read Italian. ] (]) 00:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:What does talk space have to do with anything? BLP applies there just as much as anywhere else. The OP reworded his question only because you advised, erroneously, that his original formulation was contrary to BLP because it contained speculation. Well, that is just not true. I asked you to point out where this alleged speculation was, and you have failed to do so. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 12:54 am, Today (UTC−5)
:Apparently you need to locate an occurrence of "(T<small><small>AV</small></small> VII)" or "(T<small><small>AV</small></small> XII)" in the text. --] (]) 12:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ec}} References to the illustration are in the form "{{serif|tavolo VII}}" or "{{serif|tav. VII}}". So, for example, page 99 refers to {{serif|fig. 1 e 2}}. The text refers to the development of the actinae being studied without precise identification, specifically to their sprouting new tentacles, not being (''contra'' ]) a prolongation of the skin of the base, but from parts of the body. The same page has a reference to {{serif|fig. 3}}. &nbsp;--] 12:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry where are you seeing this page 99 you are referring to? ] (]) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Oops, I forgot to link. It is (and also ). &nbsp;--] 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Pu Yi ==
::I've restored your objection. I also reported this to BLP before you made that objection. This is a living person, and every searchable part of WP needs refs supporting otherwise defamable remarks, at the least. This is not the ref desk talk page. ] (]) 06:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
<s>Although member of the Chinese Communist Party, the last Emperor was an anti-communist and counter-revolutionnair until his death? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small></s><small>Block evasion. ]<small>]</small> 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:I imagine that during the ], it was wise to keep one's opinions to one's self. ] (]) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{small|] did apparently not get the memo. &nbsp;--] 22:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::] can give psychological pressure on the individual and affect his or her behaviours. ] (]) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


= January 21 =
::: You continue to avoid my questions, and I remain completely unconvinced that any breach of BLP has taken place on this thread. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


== text of executive order ==
:I don't know for sure who made them since they were unsigned, but I have removed some rather dumb hattings here by removing completely the posts. Please remember if you believe a BLP violation has already occured, it's serves little purpose to hat and doesn't help deal with the BLP violation. The only reason you may hat a discussion relating to BLP, is if you believe a post may lead to a BLP violation but none has occured yet. This may apply to the first posts, but from the closing summary did not apply to the posts I removed. I don't personally know if a BLP violation occured but I generally prefer to defer in favour of BLP. ] (]) 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi. On 2025-01-20, POTUS signed an ] titled "Ending Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants". This event has been reported by virtually every major news outlet in the world.
As I wrote earlier, if someone acts in some way, then the reason why he did that is often not known to the person himself, because it's usually result of subconscious processing of information. Especially in case of danger you will act fast on "autopilot". One has to consider that if you could always give a simple explanation why someone did what he did, then you could replace the brain of that person by a simple programmable pocket calculator. In reality such calculator would fall way short of even being able to function as the brains of a fruit fly. ] (]) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


It is now 2025-01-20 9PM Washington time, and I have been trying to find the exact text, or even portions of its text, for a while now, to no avail.
:<small>The moral of this case is that there ''ought to be a law against shooting through a frickin' door.'' It never seems to end well. If you want to kill somebody, at least have the courtesy to do it to their face. ] (]) 16:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
::<small>The heavily armed burglar will watch the door, before you can open it properly you will already have been shot dead. ] (]) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>Burglars aren't usually there to stay, so why would you be the one needing to open the door? Obviously that would be a tactical disadvantage, but you don't have to. ] (]) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)</small>


1. Is the full text of this executive order available to the general public?
*NOTICE The affidavit and none of the other documentation was provided until a good faith report was made, leaving the issue to the ]. Funny how filing such report improves article space and removes personal animus from the issue. Or is someone saying the point here was to persecute someone, say, using proxy accounts and personal attacks? No. I didn't think so. ] (]) 05:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


This ] site claims that: "All Executive Orders and Proclamations issued after March 1936 are required by law to be published in the Federal Register."
== Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate? ==


2. Assuming that the above claim is true, is there any requirement or guideline on how quickly an EO is published after it has been signed by POTUS? ] (]) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate? Instead of dropping bills and coins, can you drop fruits and vegetables instead? The fruits and vegetables may be alms, because they can be consumed. Instead of being tithed money, can you give a tithe in terms of your weekly consumption of grain? Every week, you may buy a sack of grain. You keep 9/10 of it for yourself and donate 1/10 of its weight to the church. ] (]) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:Churches might do food drives, where food is gathered for the poor, homeless, etc. It doesn't go into the offering plate, though. I think a church would probably exempt anyone who ''had'' to pay in food from tithing, unless they're some ].
:Paying with food instead of money is sort of the origin of blackmail, if I remember correctly (though with taxes instead of tithes). Pre-modern tax-collectors would sometimes accept food only to tell the taxpayer that it wasn't enough, coming back for more and more than if the peasant had just paid with gold. Any "church" that would do that I'd gladly set fire to in the name of Christ. ] (]) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:I would think the typical size of the typical collection plate would make the OP's idea impractical. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are asking this about a church you go to yourself, this is not really a question that Misplaced Pages can answer. The best thing to do would be to ask your priest/pastor/minister. The more general answer is that in the past ]s were sometimes paid "in kind", which includes agricultural products. You will also see from our article on the ] that alms given at this time have sometimes included other things than money. You may have slightly misunderstood one thing about tithing, though: you do not give 1/10 of your consumption (or whatever the proportion is in your community), you give 1/10 of your production or earnings. So if you earn $1000, or pick 1000 apples from your orchard, a full application of tithing would mean you would give $100, or 100 fairly chosen apples, to your church, even if you only spend $500 taking care of yourself, or only eat 500 apples. That is, your tithing is a gift to the church (and thus to God), based on the work you have done. (Also, notice that the rules about tithing differ from church to church, and even vary in different parts of the Bible; see the article on ] for more details.) ] (]) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


:Nevermind. The full text was posted some time around 2025-01-20 8:45PM Washington time. None of the news agencies reporting before that got the title right, so I'm guessing that the title of the EO was only released when its full text was released. ] (]) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{EC}}Basically, the collection is to cover the running expenses of the church and you can't pay the electricity bill or insurance premium with fruit.
::As I read the order literally, it implies that persons to which birthright citizenship is denied by force of Section 2 (a) of the order can also not be naturalized at a later date (or, if they can, no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing the acquired citizenship). &nbsp;--] 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::However, in the ] most parishes observe a ] in the autumn, when parishioners bring gifts of food. This is either donated directly to someone that needs it, such as a homeless people's shelter or a ], or sometimes the food is auctioned off to the congregation at the end of the service and the money raised is given to a project in a developing country. People don't put the food in a plate, but at a given point in the service, people bring their gifts to the front of the church and it is laid in front of the altar. ] (]) 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I think it depends on the church. Some collections may be taken to cover running expenses, but at some churches collections are taken for the "poor of the parish", or for a wide variety of charitable organisations, both local and of wider scope. ] (]) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
*We're, again, overcomplicating matters for the OP. Under normal circumstances, when the "plate is passed", they are asking you for a cash donation if you can spare it. The church doesn't want your leftover celery. Could you maybe, possibly, find a church that collects food somewhere in the entire world? Probably. But if the OP wants to know how most Christian churches work, the passing of the plate is for the collection of cash for a variety of reasons; including both the churches operating budget (to pay the salary and/or living expenses of the clergy, to pay the electric and water bills, insurance, etc.) AND to pay for the church's various missionary activity, including charitable work and proselytizing work. That's what the plate is passed for, that's what it is used for. There's no need to hedge on the standard procedure and expectations here on the off chance some weird church actually expects a small sack of grain from any of the attendees. The church passes the plate for money. Don't put an apple in there. You'd confuse everyone, quite probably insult people. It is absolutely OK to put nothing in the plate; no one would notice or care. Many church members tithe electronically nowadays anyways. We do; my family tithes by automatic bank draft once a month, so we put nothing in the plate. No one would care if you put nothing. Or, you put in money if you are led to by your heart. --]''''']''''' 02:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
**In olden times, farmers would store their harvest in two barns, the smaller one called a "tithe barn" which was to hold 10 percent of the farmer's crop, which would be donated to the church, presumably for distribution to the poor. Pretty hard to fit a tithe barn into a collection plate. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
***Yeah, but the point is, the OP is not asking about "If I lived 300 years ago and was expected to give from my grain stores, what did people do back then" He's asking about people going into a Christian church today when the plate is passed. Put a check or some cash in. Or don't. Those are your options. Either of those is very much acceptable ''especially putting nothing in the plate'' No one will think bad of a person who did put nothing. Doing something like putting food in the plate would be ''weird'' and possibly insulting. --]''''']''''' 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:I wouldn't do it. I've been to churches where worshippers have left gifts of food, toys etc. at the altar rather than in the offertory box or on the plate. Maybe that would suit your purposes better. --] (]) 12:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:I agree with several commentators above. Few if any churches would welcome this. For starters even if a church did welcome contributions of perishable food, just dumping it in the collection plate is unlikely to be welcome. Depending on the country, coins may be common and even without coins, passing the plate, hands putting in donations etc could easily damage the food. Not to mention even one or two pieces of fruit or vegetables would easily fill the plate, let alone the amount that would be necessary for a decent donation in many countries.
:Of course, even most charities and churches which do welcome food usually don't want perisable food (like fresh fruits and veges) from random donors, they'd usually want some sort of coordination to make sure they can resonably use the food.
:Also as I understand it, in many cases even donating non-perisable food like canned goods is often not particularly helpful, frequently (depending on stuff like country and size of the organisation), the organisations can get it a lot cheaper than you ever can so unless you are actually producing it, it's dumb for you to buy it to donate plus you create coordination and similar problems. If you bought a lot of canned food and find you don't want it, you could undoutedly find a church or other charity which would accept it by asking, but this doesn't mean it makes sense to tithe in that fashion.
:] (]) 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
* Perhaps other agricultural products would be more compact. Goethe said that "the Holy Church's stomach alone can take Ill-gotten goods without stomach-ache." I'm not sure how the priest would react to find a few tiny bags of heroin on the collection plate, but I imagine some of the parishoners would be grateful. :) ] (]) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


== Deadline for ratification of amendments to the US constitution ==
= March 8 =
== How do I file for divorce ==


Hello, and thank you for this opportunity to ask the experts. There's been talk recently about the proposed ] to the US constitution after former president Biden stated the he considered the amendment to be ratified and part of the US constitution, as it had been ratified by 38 states, reaching the bar of three quarters of the states the Article 5 of the US constitution sets.
I wanna know how to file for divorce in Texas ] (]) 13:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:We cannot offer legal advice, but we can advise you to speak to a lawyer. gives some information, too. DISCLAIMER: The results of this Google search have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, nor with any of Misplaced Pages's contributors. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 13:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


The National Archives disagreed and pointed to a deadline (later extended) for ratification set by Congress; since the required number of states had not been reached by the final deadline and since the deadline had not been extended further, it said, the amendment could not be considered ratified.
:<small>If your spouse is poor, mentally retarded, under 18, doesn't speak English, or is not a US citizen, then the quickest way to get a divorce may well be to accuse them of a capital crime on very little evidence, and wait for them to be quickly convicted and executed. ] (]) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC) </small>
::Define "quick" execution, in the US. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::<small>StuRat, stop giving my spouse ideas!] 22:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>Well, with mine, two out of four ain't bad... :)</small> <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:::: <small> Two out of which four out of the five? -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC) </small>


This appears to be plainly at odds with the text of ], which contains no mention of Congress being able to impose a deadline, or in fact any other requirement, for the ratification process. The best argument I've seen in non-scholarly sources is, in essence, that "the 5th Amendment is silent on this", but that strikes me as unconvincing. The 5th prescribes a process, and there is no reason (that is readily apparent to me) to presume that this process may be changed by Congress in either direction. Just like Congress may not declare that ratification by one half of the states (rather than three quarters) is sufficient, it may not impose that additional steps must be taken or additional hurdles passed: say, it may not require that four fifths of the states must ratify and that three quarters is not enough. The Constitution prescribes what conditions are necessary for an Amendment to become part of the Constitution — but it also dictates that when these conditions are met, this does happen.
== Conspiracy theory about ] ==
{{hat|See ] - the question has been asked and answered, and this isn't a platform for speculation and opinion. ] (]) 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}}
How many people said they saw his body? The evidence in the article above seems kinda thin, since all appear to be connected to him somehow. On the top of that, the piece of skull, that was thought to be Hitler's, was not. It is also known that prominent Nazis fled to South America. Why wouldn't a man with all the power in his country board a submarine and disappear? I am not a friend of conspiracy theories, but in this case, how to prove that he died when they say he died? ] (]) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:Berlin is a couple of hundred kilometres from the next plausible submarine harbour, all through allied-controlled territory. Hitler was 56, not particularly healthy, and one of the best-known faces on the planet. On another level, how do you prove anything in history? --] (]) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::Certain things have better evidence backing them than others. This is not about ancient history, but something that happened, in historical terms, recently. The submarine bit is just speculation. But he could have survived and have hidden in the same way that Saddam hid for a long time, or, ] hid, and even attended conferences giving lectures to hundred of people, in a country where everyone knew him too. ] (]) 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::As I recall from the early 90s, when a fair number of KGB secrets came out, there was no question they had Hitler's body. It's just that their secretiveness about it (and everything else), opened the door to various speculations. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


As such I find the National Archives' position to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the 5th, and Congress's attempt to impose an additional requirement in the form of a deadline strikes me as out of line with the Constitution, rendering said additional requirement null and void.
:These ideas have been around a long time, and seem plausible enough to me. Here's a recent version of it though that article is dismissive of the idea. When I think of how much art and other treasure wormed its way out of Germany, and how much money Hitler would have had to bargain with, I find it very hard to believe he did ''not'' escape. Especially when, as our article, otherwise sanitized, admits, the skull fragments of "Hitler" turned out to be someone else. Also see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC) N.B. the case may well be settled soon enough. The Mail article says he had daughters, and with large-scale DNA sequencing becoming easy, and touted for any number of reasons voluntary and involuntary, it should be possible to track back and figure out where each piece of their DNA came from in past generations, to the point where their ancestry is readily discoverable. ] (]) 00:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::This is of course ignoring all the Germans who also saw him alive in the bunker in the last few days, and his entire character and life history... ] (]) 12:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, you can drag any gang member, serial killer, child rapist, or terrorist out of the deepest hole in America and if he says something I ''might'' believe it, but I'm not inclined to hold those in Hitler's bunker in such high regard. And we ''know'' that a murder or an escape can happen and yet out of an entire prison not one person will speak up and say what happened. ] (]) 16:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Sure I guess, but you have to assume that everyone who ever associated with Hitler was a monster and a liar; shockingly some of them were just regular people like us... ] (]) 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Sure, someone like ] writes a lovely book that almost sounds like he just wanted to build pretty buildings, but if you look closely enough... the illusion doesn't hold. And prisons ''are'' full of ordinary people - lots of ordinary people are convicted wrongly, though no one will believe them. But when push comes to shove, when there's something they're not supposed to talk about, they realize it's better to let the authorities keep scratching their heads than to spend the rest of their lives wondering if the last thing they'll see is their wives and kids having their throats cut. ] is a real thing even in the nominally "free" neighborhoods to which the poor are consigned. And with the U.S. government very clearly, almost openly giving out free passes to every ] to cross their doorstep, the Nazis would have been very clear on the idea that telling would be something with a huge downside and very little upside. And that's before we even get to the ''carrot'' - that the Nazis were flush with billions in counterfeited money and stolen art, which could be disbursed immediately or on an installment plan. The amount of ] that has circulated, some to this day, also illustrates that Hitler could have passed through a military cordon rendered porous by large amounts of valuable goods. ] (]) 04:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Your logic is unintelligible to me. The upside of telling the truth is that you can't be caught out in a lie. If you need to lie, the best approach is to do so with as little deviation from the truth as possible, as you are more likely to get away with it. Speer's books were not a pack of blatant lies. They were self-serving versions of events that obfuscated his own involvement and knowledge as much as he could get way with and be believed. A big fat lie that everyone sticks to about Hitler's death is just not plausible. Anyone who told the "truth" would have huge potential advantages from the allies, if the story was plausible. But it just wasn't. Hitler could easily have escaped if he'd wanted to. All he had to do was leave a few days earlier. But there was always the chance he'd eventually be captured, or handed over. And he'd have to live the rest of his life in obscurity as a fugitive. Nothing we know about his personality suggests that he would have wanted that. I don't even understand what you are saying about "Nazi plunder" helping him to pass through a "military cordon". None did that. It wasn't a case of bribing one guard. There were allied troops ''everywhere''. They'd all have to be corrupt, which is just not plausible. ] (]) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Military people are very good at not looking into a crate or not looking into a truck when they're told the contents are secret. Whether it's a truckload of confiscated military prototypes, stolen art, or Fuhrer and friends drinking beer, who can say? Provided they don't get drunk enough to start singing, anyway. And we should remember that the U.S. made a ''lot'' of "practical" accommodations to get advantage over the Communists - including having virtually no successful war crimes trials of the Japanese who ''tortured American troops''. ] (]) 14:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::There was no "Practical" accommodation involved in helping Hitler to escape, which would have been to no advantage to anyone, and "military people" would only do as you say if they had clear orders to do so. No other Nazi leader got away in comparable circumstances. None. The essential point is that ''if'' Hitler had wanted to get away he could and would have arranged it earlier, rather than leaving it to the last minute when the chances of succeeding were remote. ] (]) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, it's simple. Yes, he could have run away months earlier (nobody denies that fact), but he was simple too lost. Hitler was known for living in his own world, which doesn't correspond with the reality. Even until the last month before German's surrender, Hitler still thought that Germans would win the war despite the obvious reality that sooner or later Germany will lose. Only until few days before the Soviet approached Berlin that Hitler finally had a wake-up call back to reality. Next thing, he was on his way to escape. And perhaps has a life similar to ]. Plus Hitler can have children and train them to wait for the next opportunity to destroy the world (if there is no opportunities then they can keep waiting on until grandchildren and so on). Of course his descendants are pure speculation, but Hitler's escape seem to be more plausible. Last thing, perhaps, the whole thing was a big fat lie from the Germans. You simply just can't trust those who committed unbelievable notorious crimes or worship someone who advocated for those crimes. Perhaps, Hitler has in fact escaped months earlier and the whole thing was a big conspiracy, which is not that hard to do. All they have to do is lie and there is nothing the Allied can do. They know that! It's not like they're being tortured to say the truth. If they were being tortured and said that Hitler in fact was dead then I would believe them with no question. There is no motivation to say the truth. On the other side, there is a big motivation to lie that is to protect their idol or even their god, Hitler! Lastly, I don't get what you mean by huge potential advantages from telling the truth? What exactly do they get for telling the truths? Is the reward really outweighed the cost of betraying their biggest worshiped idol, Hitler?] (]) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Cash, intelligence reports on the Russians, military research, worldwide contacts... someone might have found an excuse, if already somewhat favorable to Nazi ideology. It is true of course that ] went after lower profile targets than Hitler, but ] wasn't exactly a nobody. As for your argument that he could have escaped earlier -- he was at that point, frequently encountered in fiction, where the only way to be safe is to be "dead". (Now to be sure, I'm not saying this is the only way; indeed, there is the somewhat amusing ''other'' option, so reminiscent of ]'s peculiar burial, that would place Hitler in some nearly forgotten bunker hundreds and hundreds of floors below NKVD headquarters, hooked up to state of the art life support and facing periodic and most intense "interrogation" sessions without much concern for the answers even to this very day).
::::::::::Eichmann was in Austria at the end of the war, which made in vastly easier to escape. Also, his face wasn't well known, and neither was his role in the Holocaust at first. Also he was a careerist, not an ideologue. People like Goering and Goebbels ''genuinely'' believed that the German people would be putting up statues to them as heroes in the future, as Goering said. They were proud to be Nazis. I'm pretty sure that Hitler wanted to be seen as a German hero who would die rather than surrender, believing that it would preserve his honour to posterity. Look how appalled he was at General Paulus. The last part of your comments make no sense at all to me. You seem to be entering surreal territory. ] (]) 22:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Now, you're simply just speculating what Hitler most likely would have done based on what we know about Hitler. Don't forget that humans are very very complex, and for the most parts unpredictable. I need more concrete evidence or at least a more reliable witness. A bunch of Germans are completely unreliable. The Soviet is only second-hand source, which is likely to be false if the primary source was false. Or even worse, perhaps the Soviet knew Hitler escaped but made this whole thing up to cover the world because they knew if the world knows Hitler was still alive, nobody can rest and everyone would panic. There are many reasons to believe that the Soviet may have something to do with the cover up. They apparently had Hitler's ashes, but for some reasons choose to scatter it to the river. It seems like they wanted to destroy any evidence to prove that Hitler in fact didn't die. Why they didn't keep the evidence for verification in the future? The Soviet wasn't stupid. In the 1970's, there are plenty evidences that we're getting close to DNA testing technology. They could have kept the remain a little longer and then use DNA test to confirm the truth but they didn't. And why they didn't keep both skulls to make sure the Germans didn't lie? Do you really think the Soviet trusted the Germans? If anything, the Germans would be the last one any Soviet would trust. If the Soviet didn't trust the Germans in the first place then the Soviet must have made sure that careful procedure must be carried out to make sure Hitler was dead. Looking at their actions, I don't think they were careful at all. More like recklessly destroyed the evidence to cover up.] (]) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I am not "simply speculating". I am basing what I say on what we know about Hitler. And it's exactly what Hitler's biographers say. What you say about DNA testing in the 1970s is bizarre. No-one knew any such thing in the 1970s. They destroyed the remains because they had ample evidence of what happened, and did not want them to become relics. "A bunch of Germans are completely unreliable." Charming. ] (]) 12:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yes that's what I wrote. You speculated based on what we know about Hitler. However, it doesn't matter at all, not even in the slightest. Humans, like I said, are very complex and nobody can accurately predict what Hitler would have done. Again, I need stronger evidence. I didn't say anyone knew about DNA testing in the 70's. What I said was our technology was close to able to do that in the 70's. ], only 16 years afterward. Almost all technology was foreseen decades or even centuries before we can actually do it. By the 70's, we have done most of the work on understanding DNA since its first discovery in ]. Most advancements took a long time to make it become reality, they all started first as an idea. Like we didn't just one day get to the Moon. It took decades of efforts. DNA testing is not much difference. The idea is older than 70's, but we have to work for decades until we finally achieved it! And your reason of the Soviet afraiding the remains became relics is absurd. It has to be at least centuries old for it to be classified as relic. And, before any technology became reality, we usually can sense its coming 10 or 20 years or even decades ahead of time. I feel like most genetic experts could reasonable predicted that DNA testing wasn't too far away of a dream in 70's. It's not like people would call you crazy if you talked about possible DNA testing for near the future in 70's. Like I said, Soviet was nowhere to be idiot, they wouldn't destroy the chance to confirm it when the technology available was that close unless there is another reason...] (]) 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't get how we can be so certain that Hitler was dead in 1945. I think he has escaped. Look, my strongest evidence is the skull, we thought all along was his, turned out to be from a woman. I know his body was exhumed and scattered in the river back in the 70's, but apparently, they kept the skull. The skull was from the Hitler's body. If the skull wasn't from Hitler then we can be certain that the dead body wasn't Hitler. Therefore, the fact, whether we like it or not, is Hitler's body was never found. He could have easily escaped, considered that many top Nazi officials have done so. Plus, I don't trust any of the eyewitnesses as they all were Germans and Hitler's supporters at one point. It wouldn't hard to believe that they would do anything to help Hitler successfully escape by spreading the big lie that he was dead. It would be more believable if an American or Soviet actually witness Hitler's death, or any witness beside German. The article should not portray Hitler's death in 1945 as fact because it's not a fact. There is really no concrete evidence to support that fact beside all the German witnesses, who by nature are not reliable by the slightest and should not be taken into account.] (]) 05:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:"If the skull wasn't from Hitler then we can be certain that the dead body wasn't Hitler." This is a complete ''non sequitur''. If the Nazis wanted to fake Hitler's death, why would they put the body of a woman in the supposed grave. Did they think the Russians were dumb? If the Russians wanted to pretend they had found Hitler's body, why use the skull of a woman, when there were many 50-something male corpses to choose from? It makes no sense. The fact is, we have very little evidence that the skull came from the body that was scattered. It's just a bit of skull that some Soviet archivist said came from the body. And we know how reliable history was in the Soviet Union. Since Adolf and Eva were buried together and their bodies burned, it would be easy for a bit of Eva's skull to be mislabeled as Adolf's. There were also many other people who killed themselves in and around the bunker. You are assuming that these body-bits were stored in conditions of great care. That's highly unlikely. Also "many top Nazi officials" did not escape. None of the main leadership did, certainly not those who were in the Berlin bunker at the time. They were completely surrounded. Yes, some simply disappeared, like Bormann and Heinrich Müller, but by the far the most likely explanation is that they were killed or committed suicide and their bodies were not identified. There were thousands of corpses littering the streets. Bormann's skull was later found. Müller's has not been, but that means almost nothing. ] (]) 12:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, so both Eva and Hitler were burned before the Soviet even got there. Therefore, there was really no way to identify which skull is from Eva or Hitler. What made the Soviet so certain that the skull they had was Hitler's? I'm sure it was because the German (liers) told them so. How else can the Soviet know the skull was from Hitler? If the only "concrete" evidence (something that can be proven) we ever had turned out to false then it's plausible to think the whole thing was false. As for why they picked the woman's skull instead of the man's skull? It's proven that sometimes humans did things that they didn't know why they did it in the first place. Or perhaps they were frankly stupid? As for the motivation, there are plenty. Remember that they were all Hitler's big supporters at one point or even worshiping Hitler. Plus, at the time, everyone was panicked so they might not think very clearly. They didn't think the Soviet was dumb- but they know with the technology at the time-there is simply no way anyone can possibly identify cremated body from whether it's male or female or whatever. So because they know there is no difference of picking a female body over the male body, why bothers? They could have just randomly picked a dead body and it just happened to be a female by pure chance. Bottom line: there is no concrete evidence to prove that Hitler was in fact dead in 1945 (he probably is long dead by now) except the German witnesses, who are in no way can be trust to say the truth due to their adherence and worship to Nazi and Hitler's ideology. ] (]) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::You have spectacularly failed to get the point. There is no evidence whatever that a skull-fragment in a Soviet archive was ever in a grave in Berlin, or has any actual connection to it. The bodies in the grave were only partially burned. You seem to be ignorant of these basic facts. The Germans didn't give the Russians a fragment of skull and said "this is Hitler". That's absurd. The bodies of Hitler, Eva, the Goebbels' and possibly others were all exhumed, reburied, exhumed again and reburied again several times by the KGB, who then claimed to have completely ''crushed all the remains and thrown them in a river''. Then later, someone said, "oh we've still got this bit of skull" There is no reliable "chain of evidence" connecting this skull fragment to the Berlin bunker. It may have been or it may not have been anywhere near it. The KGB ''routinely'' falsified evidence, so the fact that someone sometime found a skull-fragment and said it was Hitler's has next to no value as evidence. The skull fragment is quite separate from the testimony evidence. The idea that being Nazis makes people consummate, unshakable and brilliant liars is a fantasy. Many people who were present in the bunker were not fanatical Nazis at all. They were technical and support staff. ] (]) 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::"The bodies in the grave were only partially burned"? Are you implying that Hitler's body wasn't burned that bad and we still could reasonable identify Hitler by looking at the body's face in 1945? If that was the case then I would believe that Hitler was dead, but you first need to provide me reliable source that confirms what you said.
::::And it clearly says "In 2009, DNA tests were performed on a skull Soviet officials had long believed to be Hitler's". It wasn't just some random dude that came from nowhere and claimed that was from Hitler. The one who claimed it was from Hitler must have "very high" authority and high ranking official. You should read up source m and n in the article death of Hitler above. Clearly, they found it back in 1945. I find it very hard to believe that the Soviet could make a fatal mistake of misidentifying Hitler's body if the Soviet wanted Hitler's death so much. Again, that shows they were either being reckless (which is unlikely) or being fooled by German liers (the Soviet wouldn't believe the Germans in the first place) or something was going on behind the scene. Now that you mention it, why in the world the Soviet kept exhume and rebury the remains many times? Isn't one time enough? There is literally no reason to do all of that if they could just exhume and throw it to the river in 1945. It seems like the Soviet was creating their little nice fake scene to fool most people. This is my speculation: after finding out Hitler wasn't dead and in fact has run away. The Soviet created a massive conspiracy cover-up stories and threatened death to anyone from telling the truth. They burned it many times so no one can recognize the bodies anymore. When DNA testing almost became reality, they hastily threw it in the river for no reason to make sure no one can ever find out their big fat lie. Even though, this is a pure speculation, but that sounds more plausible to believe than Hitler's death based on everything the Soviet did.
::::The Germans didn't have to be any sort of brilliant liar. Anyone can lie, even the stupidest person on earth. It's literally one of the easiest thing to do in life. Most people lie daily from small things to big things for convenience or for profit or whatever reason. Lying is common. Those Germans are even worse kind of people, so I expect lying to them is even easier. They didn't have to be consummate nor unshakable. Nobody was going to torture them so there was no reason for them to shake (I know in this context, unshakable means not going to change their mind). They might not have been fanatics, but no way in the world I can identify them as normal people. Their minds were pretty messed up. They were either honestly believed in the Hitler's regime or completely being brainwashed by Hitler. No one with the right mind would support a regime as ABSOLUTE EVIL as Hitler's regime. It's a myth that most Germans didn't know the mass killing of Jews or other inferior races deemed by the Germans, ], YES, they all knew and clearly support Hitler like a hero. No German was innocent by any mean. Their hands were full of blood of killing either it's direct or indirect. It's not an exaggeration when I called them worshipping Hitler! They were all dumb or brainwashed or sick-crazy minded people. The normal, right minded Germans were all killed right away in the world of messed up minds. Everything they did ranging from human experiment to their method of killing proved the Nazi was the worst of the worst, most evil of the evil in the human history (you should read up all of the methods killing of Nazi and let see how long it would haunt you). I wouldn't even classify them as humans, even a wild animal wouldn't kill someone for fun. Any associated with the Nazi simply can't be trusted and should be ashamed of their involvement. DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying the Germans today are bad. They're okay now I guess, but clearly not the Germans in 1945. And I'm not Jewish by any mean. I don't even know that many Jewish in my life. I'm speaking out of justice. Even someone like me who isn't affected by the Holocaust at all can deeply feel the evil of Hitler's regime. (Okay, I just realized I went off topic on this paragraph, but well, my point is it was an easy thing for any German to lie to cover up for Hitler).
::::Lastly, the only evidence backing Hitler's death is witnesses. This is only true when the Soviet trusted the Germans. You're assuming, the Soviet trusted the Germans. Like I said a couple of times, the Germans would be the last thing on Earth any Soviet would trust. The Soviet would maybe rather trust a rock than a German. That being said. Unless you can prove that the Soviet could have trusted the Germans in the 1945, otherwise all the evidences supporting Hitler's death are false. And if they didn't trust the Germans then there is no way the Soviet would announce that Hitler was indeed dead. This ties up to my Soviet's conspiracy again to help everyone free of worry if Hitler escaped.] (]) 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}


''That said,'' and this is where my question comes in, I am not a legal expert. I haven't studied law, nor do I work in or with law in any way; I am merely curious. And although appeals to authority are fallacious as far as logical reasoning is concerned, I don't doubt that the National Archives (as well as, presumably, Congressional staff) have considered this matter and concluded that yes, a) the imposition of a deadline by Congress, above and beyond the process prescribed by the 5th, is constitutional; b) meeting of said deadline is then an additional condition for ratification; and c) since this deadline has not been met here, the ERA is not part of the Constitution.
== Does South Africa have some kind of ]s? ==


And my question is: why? On what legal basis? Surely Congress cannot create additional requirements out of whole cloth; there must be some form of authorization in it. What's more, since we are talking about a process prescribed by the Constitution itself, said authority must itself be grounded in the Constitution, rather than taking the form of e.g. a simple law (Congress cannot arbitrarily empower itself to change the rules and processes laid down by the Constitution).
Otherwise, I can't see how Pistorius would be completely innocent, whether he shot a burglar through a door, or his girlfriend. But, yes, not every jurisdiction restrict self-defense to the minimum force needed to defend yourself. ] (]) 18:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:South Africa is of course somewhat famous for being the home of the ]. Anyway there is some discussion of South African self defence laws here . These are general not specific to this case, I found some which are specific to this case from a simple search, but for ] reasons I will not be providing them here (I could email them to you if you really can't find them). It's worth remembering that Oscar Pistorius says he was on his stumps during the shooting of someone he thought was an intruder in his bathroom (and from what I can tell, the prosecution agrees the stumps bit is likely ). What is resonable in such a situation may be different from someone without such a limitation on their movement. On the other hand, there's no question that the person he killed was not an intruder. ] (]) 19:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


I would be very grateful if someone with a background in law (professional or otherwise) could explain this to me. Thank you very much! ] (]) 07:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Greek daktylos ==
:I ain't no lawyer, but as I recall, the deadline was stated within the amendment proposal itself. That was the case with a few other amendments also, but they were ratified within the time limit, so there was no issue. It's possible someone will take this issue to court, and ultimately the Supreme Court would have to decide if that type of clause is valid. On the flip side, there is the most recent amendment, which prohibits Congress from giving itself a raise without an intervening election of Representatives. That one was in the wind for like 200 years, lacking a deadline. When it was finally ratified, it stood. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated! I didn't know the deadline was in the proposal itself. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this should make a difference, since for as long as the proposed Amendment is no part of the Constitution, it really is ''not'' part of the Constitution and should not be able to inform or affect other provisions of the Constitution. That said I of course agree that it would take the Supreme Court to decide the issue for good. Thanks again! ] (]) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:::<small>The ] may be quite busy with executive orders for a while. Quite possible, that the ] has to appoint another 6 or 12 judges to cope with all that work load. --] (]) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
Does anyone know of a source for which finger the ancient Greek measurement of "daktylos" refers to?
:::The courts in general views these things as ]s. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Upon comparison to ancient Hebrew measurements it would seem that it is a thumb (the Herews calculated a handbreadth as 4 thumbs or 5and a third regular fingers or 6 little fingers). ] (]) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::The deadline for the ERA was mentioned in a resolving clause before the text of the amendment itself. In other cases, such as the ], the deadline was contained in the amendment itself. Whether this makes any practical difference is a question for the courts. --] (]) (]) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: I don't understand why it is the National Archives rather than a legal/constitutional authority such as the Supreme Court that gets to decide whether a proposed amendment has become ratified or not, ie. become law or not. -- ] </sup></span>]] 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There is the Executive, in this case the National Archives, doing what the Chief Executive ordered them to do. And there is Congress, which set the rules. This sounds like a ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::By a that took effect in 1984, the task of certifying ratifications of amendments to the US Constitution has been given to the ], which is why the interpretation of the National Archives (that is, the Archivist) matters. One might argue that this statute is unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not include a provision requiring certification for ratification to take effect, unlike for other federal processes that depend on the outcomes from the several states. AFAIK the constitutionality of the statute, or any of its predecessors (like ) has never been challenged in court. &nbsp;--] 10:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I see. Thank you, Lambiam. -- ] </sup></span>]] 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::: But of course there must always be some form of official certification. That would be the case for any law passed to a state governor or the president for signing, just as it must be for a constitutional change. Otherwise, ''anyone'' could claim that a proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified by a sufficient number of states and must now become part of the law of the USA. Surely the system depends on not just ''anyone'' claiming this, but a properly constituted authority with the legal power/responsibility to make such a certification. -- ] </sup></span>]] 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Note that there was no certification procedure for the original ]; actually, the amendment provision of the ], which required unanimous approval of the states, was bypassed. I don't think there was already one in place for the ] either – when Congress met on on January 18, 1792, the President simply informed them that he had "a copy of an exemplified copy of an Act of the Legislature of Vermont, ratifying" the amendements,<sup></sup> which implied a sufficient number of instruments of ratification had been received. The procedure for the ratification of the electoral votes in presidential elections was only specified in the ]; the ] managed to do without. I agree, though, that there ''ought'' to be an official procedure for the ratification of constitutional amendments, but is the ability of Congress to inspect . The question is, is Congress passing (by simple majorities) a bill that such and such procedure shall be it, which is then signed into law by the President, enough to make it official and binding?
::::The US Constitution does not define who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. At the moment this is a hot issue. If Congress passes a bill, next signed into law, declaring that the definition is made by ], is the issue thereby settled? &nbsp;--] 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's not settled until the Supreme Court says it is. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


Here's the text:
:I suspect if anybody will specify that level of detail, it might be Oxford reference . I can't login right now, but I will check later if nobody else can find a good ref. You might be able to get access through your library. ] (]) 22:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to CH. J. Res. 208]
::EO indicates simply "finger". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
equal rights for men and women.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled {two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:"
:I checked the Oxford ref with full access, but it didn't have much additional info. Apparently "monas" is a synonym, so that might help. Oxford lists this book as their source , but it is in Romanian, and probably hard to get. This page specifies that it is "fingerbreadth", so that makes the ~0.75 inches estimate make more sense. I don't recall if ancient Greek has a separate word for "thumb", but my ] is that fingerbreadth varies more between humans than in does within one humans hand (but perhaps that was less true in a more homogenous population). ] (]) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 01:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


= January 22 =
::You may be right, however the ancient measurements based on body parts were certainly based on some "standard" person. The ratio of the sizes of different fingers are probably pretty similar in all people. So in whatever hand was used as the standard, 4 thumbs = 5-1/3 fingers = 6 pinkies ] (]) 21:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


== Sir John Simon's soul ==
= March 9 =
== The disease of kings ==


"] has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into his soul" is a quotation attributed to ]. I have been unable to come up with a definitive source, and neither ] (in ''The Chancellors''), nor Duncan Brack (in ''The Dictionary of Liberal Quotations'') have been able to either. Can the RefDeskers do better? Thank you. <small>I felt ''sure'' I'd asked this here before, but I cannot find any trace of it in the archives. </small> ] (]) 18:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Gout. The old adage is that gout is the disease of kings. I have always wondered....what kings do we know of that actually had gout?--] (]) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:I looked into this question a while ago. The earliest evidence I could find came from a diary entry by ] for 14th December 1912:
:] was believed to have suffered from gout, and the term "disease of kings" is probably related to him. --] (]) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::The other day ] told me a good story of a member who, when speaking in the House of Commons, remarked, "Mr. So-and-So has sat for so long on the fence that the iron has entered into his soul".
:Also ] (). --] (]) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:]'s "foot disease" is often said to have been gout (see , for example), though our article doesn't mention it. ] (]) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC) :It's . Shame that no-one's named. --] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Both parties were named by ] . Google Books also claims to have it in a version naming Lloyd George and Simon in a 1931 number of the ''New Statesman'', but I find their dating of "Snippet view" periodicals unreliable. --] (]) 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::<small>Perhaps it should be spelled "the disease of ]", then. ] (]) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
:] too. ] (]) 12:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC) :I found a 1922 case of "Who was it who said of a Free Church leader: "he has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into his soul"?". ] (]) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ha! The Spring 1905 number of ''Forest Leaves'' magazine ( at vol. II, no. 2, p. 16) gives us this: "] said that Sir ] 'had sat so long on the fence that the iron had entered into his soul.'" A rare example, then, of ] in reverse. --] (]) 08:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: tells us that Churchill said this at a meeting of the Bow and Bromley Conservative Association in, apparently, April 1905. --] (]) 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh well done! I'd always rather associated it with Manchuria. Lloyd George does have a certain gravitational pull for put-downs. I can't quite see him actually nicking one of Churchill's, and I think he would not want to associate himself, even indirectly, with such a negative comment about CB. I'm reminded by ] that it is an echo of Psalm 105:18 in the Prayer Book. <small>If I were Lawrence Frances Flick I would be VERY careful about the choice of type-face for my bookmarks</small> ] (]) 10:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I found the ''Forest Leaves'' version (with a couple more from the column) in ''The Mail'' (Dublin) 4 January 1905. Interestingly, there was an article in lots of local papers in January 1905 which mention the iron entering Lloyd George's soul as a result of how power is abused in the hands of an ascendant Church. ] (]) 11:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Interesting. Got a link to the ''Mail'' version? --] (]) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::(ec) The says that Mr Churchill made the dig at CB "at Bow, February 19, 1902". Dublin ''Mail'' 4 Jan 1905 ] (]) 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The "iron entered his/my/our soul(s)" trope seems very common at the time, usually of course in a more positive sense. ] (]) 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And here is a report of Churchill addressing the Annual Meeting of the Bow and Bromley Conservative Association from the ''Derby Daily Telegraph'' Thursday 20 February 1902 . ] (]) 11:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The report appears in many local papers. The report in the '''' says CB has NOT (my emphasis) sat so long on the fence that the iron has entered his soul. ] (])
:::::If you have access to a copy it might be worth taking a look at the eight-volume ''Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963'', edited by Robert Rhodes James. --] (]) 14:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Not in , where it should be. ] (]) 18:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::The anecdote is told in a Lloyd George–John Simon version on page 472 of '']'' issue of October 17, 1931:
:::{{tq|Sir John Simon's acidity of temperament and capacity for being a little in several camps but beloved by none led his late chief to remark—or so I'm told—that "Sir John has sat so long on the fence, that the iron has entered into his soul." {{quad}}{{quad}}{{quad}}{{smallcaps|Critic.}}}}<sup></sup>
:: one can verify, in spite of the snippetness of the permitted views, that this indeed the issue of this date. So it is indeed true that Lloyd George "is said" (or, more precisely, "has been said") to have commented this – although using a slightly different word order and punctuation than the quotation in our article. It is, of course, by no means sure that he <u>actually</u> has done so. &nbsp;--] 14:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::: it is on Archive.org. It is Volume II Number 34, despite what Google claims. ] (]) 18:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::On the other hand, the Churchill/Campbell-Bannerman version was as late as 1950, so the two variants co-existed for many years. --] (]) 17:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


= January 23 =
== Jacques Necker - French Finance Minister ==


== Marco Guidetti ==
The article for Necker gives two different dates (29 June 1777 AND October 1776) for his commencement as Director-General.


Who was Marco Guidetti in relation to ]? ] wrapper says "Marco Guidetti Pentera de Tomaso", but my search didn't yield any meaningful results for him, including books. My guess , but not sure. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify?


:The creator(s) of these ] wrappers misspelled "Pantera", so they were not overly careful. Perhaps they misinterpreted the name of the author of the photograph as being the name of the car model. &nbsp;--] 15:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks ] (]) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:As far as I can figure out from the German version, Necker was made ''contrôleur général des finances'' in October 1776 and then formally became ''directeur général des finances'' in June 1777. --] (]) 08:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


:One possibility is that the particular vehicle shown was owned by a Marco Guidetti, possibly the movie designer and art director of that name who worked on Mad Max and other films: IMDb link (unreliable source) . Relatedly, he may instead have been involved in designing the model's styling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 15:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:A Marco Guidetti is credited to authoring and photographing and a Marco Guidetti also authored . So it appears likely it is the name of the photographer as suggested by Lambiam when the gum was recently reintroduced, although this doesn't rule out the alternative possibilities that they are the car's owner or its designer as suggested by The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195. ] (]) 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== History ==
::We also haven't ''yet'' ruled out the author/photographer/car designer(?) and the film designer being the same person, although the car originated arond 1970 and film guy's career seems to have started around 2003. Of course, 'Marco ]' cannot be that uncommon a name in Italy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
How can I prove that everything before I was born (1991) wasn't a hoax? I mean, I was not alive before then, so I can not verify that all these things happened . They could be forgeries. Same could be said before you were born. --] (]) 20:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::Probable photo, and eulogy of author/photographer Marco Guidetti: --] (]) 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not brave enough to try and answer that! However, ] is the area of philosophy concerned with that kind of thought. ] (]) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


== Australian Antarctic Territory population ==
:See also ] (and ] and ] or perhaps ]). Even ] doesn't really establish that the past is not a hoax or shared hallucination. Short answer: '''you can't''', not based on axiomatic reasoning, logic, or direct observation and experimentation, no matter how rigorous. -- and you can never definitively disprove any manner of ] gods. <small> (Mostly non-philosophers just ignore that problem and lead our normal lives ;) </small> ] (]) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


What was the population of the ] in the ]? I assumed this would easily be discoverable with a Google search, but I couldn't find this information from the ]. Since the census counts people where they are on census night (and not where they live permanently), since ] is inhabited year-round, and since the AAT is considered an external territory of Australia, the AAT should have been covered by the census (comparable to Christmas Island, the Cocos, etc) and should have had a non-zero population on census night. ] (]) 19:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, the past before your birth could be a hoax. The whole world (and universe) could have been created ] and none of us could prove otherwise, let alone way back in 1991. ] figured that out back in 1857 in his book ]. ] (]) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


:The external territories are listed here: . Quoting our article "Australia is an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. Under section 4, all territorial claims are held in abeyance." Which would appear to explain why it's not listed. ] (]) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
: You can't even prove '''you''' were born; at least, born on a particular date in a particular place. Can you honestly say you remember it? How do you know you weren't adopted? Why should you trust your parents or the Registrar of Births, any more than those shoddy books that allege people like Lincoln and Gandhi and Henry VIII existed? -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


: "Expeditioners to Australian bases in the Australian Antarctic Territory (and other locations) are included in the Census. Their 'place of enumeration' is an Offshore Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) in Tasmania." -- ] </sup></span>]] 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::It was a hoax. You got me. ] (]) 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::Hm, that's interesting. I wonder what it is? I went to https://maps.abs.gov.au (which gives you information on an SA1-level) and ran a search for "Antarctic", and there were two called "Antarctic Circle" and "New Antarctica", but they're in southeastern Brisbane and near the Sydney CBD :-\ ] (]) 03:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And an old one at that. From ''Horse Feathers'' (1934):
:::::Prosecutor: Chicolini, when were you born?
:::::Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little-a baby.
::::←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:::First..prove you exist then worry about everything before that.--] (]) 21:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


== Explain meme? ==
:Only ] knows for sure. ] (]) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


I understand what the person is trying to imply about Elon Musk, but I don't understand what the second picture is getting at. Is that Prince Harry and is that relevant? I'm pretty clueless so be patient. Thanks. ] (]) 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:] had doubts about everything in his ]. Doubt can be a fruitful exercise. ] (]) 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:Chris Hemsworth. The second image is a reverse angle showing the listener's response, and the meme is all about a good example of a facial expression expressing doubt. Originally the response by the listener was "is he though?". See . -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ah thanks, I'm not sure I wanted to know that the Mighty Thor looks like that now. ] (]) 08:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe it's a bit cultural. I taught at the high school Chris Hemsworth attended, and picked that look instantly. ] (]) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


= January 24 =
:Also consider the ] and ] of quantum mechanics... Suppose you have a sentience (whatever that is) newly created, which has never interacted with the world except by the sole information it is created. Then the rest of the world is like ] in a box - it doesn't know whether it is alive or dead, or what it is. Then it makes an observation, and another, and another, and the rest of the world becomes resolved into more and more specific quantum states... (the two hypotheses differ in that for one there is a different consciousness branching for every possible outcome of these observations, the other that there is only one "real" one) ] (]) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


== In which place, first-cousin-once-removed marriage is not allowed? ==
== Could a medieval monk leave the monastery? ==


In which place, first-cousin-once-removed marriage is not allowed? ] (]) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
If a medieval monk ever decided that he no longer wanted to live a life of poverty, chastity and obedience could he leave the monastery and live an average but moral life? What was the process he'd have to go through to be released from the monastery? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Misplaced Pages's ] article will answer your question. ]|] 09:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:You are speaking of a thousand-year period spread over at least a continent, and not defining "average" or "moral". You might want to ask a more specific claim. You can look at ], but this doesn't cover every Catholic monastic order. ] (]) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::Also didn't specify Catholic. The ] vows are for life. Of course, if people can escape prison and live a new life, they can escape anything. Actually, reading my own link, it seems you can give up and retake your vows, but only seven times. Seems fair. ] ] 00:53, ], ] (UTC)
::Here are 227 ], if anyone's interested. ] ] 00:59, ], ] (UTC)

:Medeis makes a valid point (and one I always mention when someone asks about "the Middle Ages" in general, but nevertheless, the answer is still "yes"...generally speaking. A monk would need the permission of the abbot to be dispensed from his monastic vows, just like a priest would have to get permission from the bishop to dispense with his priestly vows. They weren't slaves, so as long as they had a good reason, they could certainly do so. If they thought they just couldn't hack it as a monk, that might not be the greatest reason, and they would probably have a kind of remedial monastic training to prepare them better. But some people just aren't suited for that kind of life, so they could leave if they really wanted to. Some monks were the stereotypical "younger sons" who were sent to the monastery by their well-off family as children, so they would have somewhere to go and someone to support them if they left, but that wouldn't be true for all monks. For many of them, the monastery was their best means of support, whether they wanted to be there or not. I'm trying to think of some "former monks" to give as examples, but none are springing to mind, although I am sure I will think of some... ] (]) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:Some monks didn't live a life of chastity and obedience. Some monks got married secretly and had children. Some monks had illegitimate children. That's where new monks and nuns came from.<br>] (]) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::Sometimes the monks and nuns ran away together! ] (]) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Was ] practiced in "the Middle Ages"? I wasn't quick in finding anything conclusive. ---] ] 12:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Adam Bishop and Sleigh, you've given me some really interesting information. I was specifically wondering about European monks other than Catholic. And by average and moral I meant a life in which the individual doesn't deprive himself of most or all worldly pleasures but he isn't a decidedly sinful or villainous person either. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Ancient obscene embroidery? ==

There is an internet meme which I saw on Facebook, consisting of what looks like an old piece of embroidery, with a picture of people near a building by a field, and old style letters spelling out "Behold! The field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and thou shalt see that it is barren." I wondered if it is some old Bible verse or old motto and the "fucks" is supposed to be "flax" or somesuch, but a Google search for the rest of the phrase only turned up recent blogs and twitter feeds laughing about it, dating back a few weeks. What's up with it? ] (]) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:It appears to be something photoshopped from the ]. In a more authentic example of the same phenomenon, the word "sucks" is sometimes hilariously transformed into "fucks" with genuine "old style letters", as you call it, by use of the ]. Hence "where the bee ſucks, there ſuck I" . ] (]) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:It's just a joke. It is generated in the style of the ], which is why you think it looks like embroidery. The language and spelling used is completely inconsistent with the era, and it doesn't refer to any Bible verse. It is written in the style of the ] (17th century English), and then an image has been created to look like it was embroidered in the 11th century. Because it's all "old", right? I would assume the sort of geek who put in the time to edit the letters so nicely onto the picture considered writing the motto in realistic abbreviated Latin, with a translation provided, but then concluded funny was more important than creating a convincing forgery. ] (]) 21:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:It appears to be a product of this website, which allows you to "redesign" the Bayeux tapestry . ] (]) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
]
::Although the original shows a couple of random naked chaps in the lower margin for no apparent reason - those nuns were not as innocent as you'd think. ] (]) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


:In case it's not obvious to some, this is based on the expression "I don't give a fuck." Which is probably relatively old. Much more recently, internet jokes were made of the form "...and not a single fuck was given that day" or "look at all the fucks I give (implication of "none") . But thanks OP; unlike most iterations, I ''do'' find this one humorous! ] (]) 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

= March 10 =
== ] ==
I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. "However, the idea of cryonics also includes preservation of people after longer post-mortem delays because of the possibility that brain structures encoding memory and personality may still persist or be inferable." I need someone to explain it to me. Thanks!] (]) 05:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:The previous sentence is "Cryonics procedures ideally begin within minutes of cardiac arrest, and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation." The important part for the context of the next sentence is "within minutes". I'm not sure which part you have problems with but here is a longer version: It's considered best to freeze the body very quickly after death (to avoid deterioration before the freezing starts). But freezing may also be attempted in cases where more time has passed since death ("post-mortem"), in the hope that brain parts responsible for memory and personality have not deteriorated yet or may still be recovered in the future. ] (]) 05:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::This part is confusing "after longer post-mortem delays". What is being delayed here? I think it should be "after longer post-mortem 'decay'". Perhaps, there is a subject-verb confusion in the sentence. Or perhaps to keep it simple so that people can understand it easier, it should be "after being dead for a while". I'm sure not many people would be familiar with the post-mortem term. ] (]) 06:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:::The delay is whatever holds up the beginning of cryo procedure. —] (]) 07:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::The wording is not very good, pretty redundant. The word delay itself implies it would take place a while later, not within the ideal "within minutes". I don't see any reason to put in longer. Plus, in the sentence, "delays" is used as a verb not as a noun such as "the delay"; this is exactly what I suspected subject-verb confusion before. I guess this problem is resolved.] (]) 07:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::And there is actually a grammar problem. The delay is supposedly to implicate whatever that delays the cryonics procedure. However, due to the placement of the word delay within the sentence, it simply doesn't make sense. The delay in the sentence would modify post-mortem (death). Death has nothing to do with what delays the cryonics procedure. This is misplaced modifier. The sentence is redundant and contain a couple grammatical errors.] (]) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::: You're mistaken on multiple counts. There is no ''the'' (definite article) before ''delays'' (plural noun) because it is an '''indefinite''' noun; that doesn't make it a verb. ''delays'' does not modify the adjective ''post-mortem'' but is modified by it, indicating that the delays in question occur '''after death''' which is what ''post-mortem'' means; the wording in no way suggests a causal link between the deaths and the delays. I refrain from criticizing '''your''' grammar. —] (]) 10:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

*I don't think the responses above answer this adequately. Here is the basic point: If you wanted to be able to thaw a person and revive them without extensive repair, then the freezing would have to take place very soon after death, otherwise the brain and other tissues would deteriorate. But the more repair you are able to do, the longer you might be able to wait. Neuroscientists believe that a person's memories are stored by altering the strength of synaptic connections between brain cells. If the brain deteriorates too much, those structures will basically dissolve into goo and there won't be any hope of reconstructing the memories. But as long as the deterioration is small enough for the strength of synapses to be measured, they hold a record of the person's memories and all the things the person knows. ] (]) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:*Yes, and the difference is between trying to bring that body (or head) back to life, which requires minimal damage, or scanning it with some future atomic level CAT scan equivalent, then transferring that intelligence into another device. Personally I think too much damage occurs during the freezing process and minutes between death and freezing to ever allow the first option, but the 2nd option seems possible, to me. ] (]) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

== Patriarchs ==

I am but dust and ashes. Please help me to understand the patriarchs. And their story. I am but inquirer. Bless all wikipedians who are true and honest in the search for insight. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I am unsure as to which definition of ] you mean. Commonly it can refer to the ] in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim tradition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it can also refer to ] in some Christian churches. Or it can more generally mean ], which refers to a male-dominated society where men hold all positions of leadership. So, perhaps those will give some idea of what you want to know. If you have a more specific question, perhaps we can help. --]''''']''''' 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::Last week, I'd've guessed this was related to ], but he could be quoting ]'s reference to Genesis. Either way, The articles on ], ], and ] would probably be most appropriate. ] (]) 15:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:::"I am but dust and ashes" in Genesis is actually said by Abraham, one of the patriarchs. There is no need to invoke the '']'' of Pshischa... ] (]) 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

== Portents after traumatic events ==

I'm looking for historical evidence of 'collective PTSD', i.e. avoidance or hyperarousal (the two main symptoms of individual PTSD). Following catastrophes in the past (plagues, earthquakes etc.), are there accounts of people behaving either individually or en masse in either of these two ways? I seem to remember accounts of people seeing 'portents in the sky' after such events and displaying these symptoms, but the only accounts I can find refer to portents seen before. ] (]) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Does ] help? --]''''']''''' 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::The question is sort of disconnected. Collective PTSD is common after earthquakes, in the sense that for a long time afterward people are nervous about being indoors and suffer from nightmares and generalized anxiety. But PTSD doesn't really have anything to do with portents. ] (]) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, but in a general sense, "portent", in the sense of "A sense of anticipation of an event" is a symptom of PTSD. People with PTSD can experience the sense that something bad is about to happen; that often causes them to respond in anticipation of such bad events; even if they are entirely psychological in nature. I believe that is what the OP means by "portent". --]''''']''''' 16:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:"Portents in the sky" historically might have referred to an ] early on (before astronomers could predict them) or a ] later (until astronomers could predict, or at least explain, those). Note that the population might have been stressed out just by these events, without any actual disaster. ] (]) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:This sounds kind of like the acronym FEAR = Future Events Appearing Real. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
: I know that symptoms of trauma have been observed after modern events, eg. in New Orleans. What I was looking for was historical accounts, but it looks like I'll have to do the research myself! Thanks for the help. ] (]) 07:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

== Introduction of Western dress in Greece ==

When did the upper classes in ] start to wear the Western fashion? ] had a salon, so could it perhaps be as early as in the 17th-century? Or did it not happen until Greek independence? I have no idea at all. --] (]) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

== How did they measure long-distance travel in the past? ==

I recently learned that miles, as a way of measuring length/distance, came into use quite late, around 1500, and the Kilometer only around 1800. Obviously, the mile have been defined in different ways so maybe it could be argued exactly when and where it began.

But my questions are two;

1) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the high middle ages?

2) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the Roman empire? (yes I know it stretches over a long time, but they probably used the same method throughout this era, I should think.)

] (]) 19:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Maps were not unknown in the ancient world. You'd be surprised how accurate they were, without GPS nor any form of satellite. ] will give you an outline. ] (]) 19:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course they knew their measurements back then also, and could no doubt make accurate maps. I'm not at all saying they were idiots. I'm just asking what methods/unit of measure they used :) Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it now. ] (]) 20:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:The article provies some units used at various times, such as travelling time via various means and ] which links to ] (both of which are generally related to travelling time anyway) which you may have heard of from ]'s ]. It doesn't seem to mention what the Romans used, nor does the articles it links to ] nor ]. The later mentions distances but not the unit. But these sources mention that either ] or ] was used, depending on the area. If you follow the links on the league page, you should end up at ] which also mention these units (although doesn't explain when the different units were used). ] (]) 20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::From ]: "The Romans, when marching their armies through Europe, were the first to use the unit of long distance ''mille passuum'' (literally a thousand paces)." However, when people travelled on foot or horseback, distance measurements were of limited use because the type of terrain traversed made a huge difference. It was far more useful to describe distances in terms of so many days march, or so many weeks at sea, etc.--]|] 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for answers. ;)
] (]) 10:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

== Evidence for bible code ==

Did you know that in the Torah (Old Testament) every 666th letter spells out the phrase "Satan the accuser". This happens exactly 7 times.

Can you show the evidence of this to me please.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/biblecode.htm <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I suggest reading up on the article covering ], in particular the section on ] of it. You might also find the article on ] relevant. There is also some relevant information in the answers given when you . ] (]) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Also, the equivalent of the "Old Testament" is the ]. The equivalent of Torah is ]. ] (]) 20:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:"Satan the accuser"? He's more like the accused than the accuser. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

==]==

OK Reference Desk tricky one for you, Who is the R. Taylor named as the engraver responsible for this work?

In order to satisfy Commons licensing policy, a date of death of the R. Taylor concerned is needed.

] (]) 19:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Richard Taylor (active 1871-1901). His date of death is not known. He was a professional wood-engraver employed by the ILN. There were many of them. I think we can assume that he died before 1944. ] (]) 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

== Is my life a fake? ==


How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor? What if ''God or another power'' has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around mgr8e is scripted? Every bird flying in the sky, every plane crash, every car on the road could all be preplanned for my life, could it not? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: If you have to ask, you'll never know. Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 20:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Exactly. The condition you set implies that you'll never know. Try to enjoy life anyway. ] (]) 20:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a fake life be subject to ]? ] (]) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::My sophomore honors English professor got angry at our class one day (for vehemently denying that he could know without knowing us personally that we were racists due to structural racism), and ended up screaming at us that we couldn't even prove we existed. A student who eventually became a housemate of mine then pulled out a penknife and tossed it at the professor's head, and it stuck in the wall next to him with a ''thwang''. The student then asked whether the knife existed, and the professor said, "Class dismissed." ] (]) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Wow. You're not making that up are you? ] (]) 22:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::I wish I were, ]. It is perhaps the best anecdote of my entire life, and I wish I had done the act. In fact, were I making it up, I would have said it was I who had done it. As far as I can see, the person who threw the knife still lives in Alexandria, Virginia, and the "victim" is now an associate professor. For BLP reasons, and to avoid outing myself, you'll have to wait for my memoirs for more details. ] (]) 04:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:You cannot even know that You didn't set it up and plant false memories in yourself. See http://www.last-thursday.org/questions. ] (]) 21:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::Starting with the assumption that everything is potentially a scripted apparition, you then focus on what would be doing the scripting. If that doesn't straighten you out, nothing will. ] (]) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::: Are all of the above answers choreographed? Are all of you designated actors that can't answer my question? '''The condition you set implies that you'll never know', ' Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here'''.. all of these answers are avoidance answers. You must all be actors in my life. --] (]) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::See ] and follow more links from that article. See where it leads you. --]''''']''''' 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 22:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Let me give a serious try at answering the question:
:''How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor?''
:You don't.
:''What if God or another power has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around mgr8e is scripted?''
:Unless the scripting is imperfect, or the higher power intends to let you know the truth, you'd never tell the difference.
:''...could all be preplanned for my life, could it not?''
:It could.
:What answers did you expect? If you imagine a scenario that can't be refuted, then by definition, it can't be refuted. That's about as mind-blowing as saying "a man is a man" or "a dog is a dog". See ].--] (]) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:Why would an omniscient being script someone's life for the observation of the omniscient being? There are two reasons here why that omniscient being would not have to do this: 1) The omniscient being is the one doing the scripting, and therefore would know the outcome; 2) The omniscient being is omniscient, and would therefore know the outcome. I know infinity is a long time, but the omniscient being cannot be ''that'' bored, being also omnipotent as part of the job description. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 00:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:I suspect I'm not the only one who wants to know if your life is a fake as well.... ] (]) 01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

::Who said anything about omniscience or omnipotence? Most gods in most cultures have been very far from either. This includes the Old Testament god, who never claims omniscience. --] (]) 01:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::: Gods don't go around claiming things for themselves. That's what their adherents do. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:See also ], and the question further up the page, titled "History". (Are these questions choreographed? It's hard for me to imagine that we'd need to discuss "last thursday-ism" and solipsism twice in as many days!) ] (]) 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If your life was an elaborate ruse, indistinguishable in all aspects from a "real" life, then it makes no difference in terms of what you experience and your reactions to it; otherwise, you would be able to distinguish the ruse from reality ] (]) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

] "The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains, thereby at the same time also refuting the selection-bias argument. If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. In an infinite universe, the number of self-aware brains that spontaneously randomly form out of the chaos, complete with false memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the real brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable universe." ] (]) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

== Conflict between Buddhism and bourgeois life ==

I am a young bourgeois Buddhist and feel a conflict between my religion and my life. There is even incompatibility between the noble eightfold path and bourgeois life? In what? And why? ] (]) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:I'm afraid this is a question more suited to your specific teachers you are working with within Buddhism. ] is a very diverse religion, and you are likely to get a VERY wide array of answers to this question. This sounds like a conversation to be had with a more experienced Buddhist such as a monk or nun that you have a relationship with, who will be well equipped to answer the theological and ethical questions you have regarding your religious life. --]''''']''''' 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::The unease experienced by a bourgeois property-owning person is discussed by the Buddha in the . ] (]) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

== Push notes ==

What is the name for a note that comes just very slightly earlier than you would expect it to? I'm not talking about a ], but rather a full note that gets the downbeat, and happens just slightly early. There's a very prominent example in Ray Charles' ''Rockhouse''.

Someone told me it was called a ], but we don't seem to have an article on that. --] (]) 23:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Yes, it's sometimes called "pushed note" or "push". The most functional name commonly used is probably "anticipation" (e.g. "8th note anticipation" or "16th note anticipation", etc). Our article section on ] mentions "anticipated bass", giving the example of the ] in Cuban music. The "]" (something ] likes referring to in his educational programs) is another example, this time from early jazz, as explained in our article on ], which mentions other examples in music of the 19th and 20th century too. ---] ] 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks, Sluzzelin. I wish we had more coverage of it. The one in "Rockhouse" is the whole reason I like the song :-) --] (]) 05:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

= March 11 =

==God, Mary, and Adultery==
I have a genuinely serious question--wouldn't God allegedly impregnating Jesus's mother Mary be considered an alleged example of adultery? Or would it not count due to the fact that there was allegedly no sexual intercourse between them at all? ] (]) 00:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:Funnily enough, it appears from the text that Mary and Joseph were engaged, rather than married, at the time of Jesus' conception. Hence why, in Matthew's Gospel, Joseph is having second thoughts until he has a dream telling him to marry Mary after all. But I also think most people who take this narrative seriously would accept your second suggestion - that as Jesus was incarnate of Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit, rather than by intercourse with a physical person, it wouldn't count as any kind of sexual sin whatever. After all, Mary was supposedly chosen precisely because of her goodness and purity. ] (]) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

::Under the laws of the old Testament, much of the heavy lifting of forming an alliance between two families was done at the time of betrothal, and betrothals were legally binding, and a betrothed woman who had sex with another man was basically regarded as guilty of adultery (not fornication) -- see Deuteronomy 22:23... ] (]) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

::Where do you get that Mary was chosen because of her goodness/purity? - ] (]) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::At least in the Catholic tradition, ] plays a part in that ] (]) 11:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::The ] is actually sort-of the opposite of Mary being chosen for her purity: it rather says that, because Mary was chosen and said yes, therefore God applied Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross to her at the point of her conception, thus preserving her from being tainted with the stain of Original Sin. So she was pure because she was chosen (and said yes). All very timey-wimey. ] (]) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:Futurist110 -- There was a kind of minor medieval motif of Joseph as the "divine cuckold"... ] (]) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not adultery, it's RAPE. ] (]) 05:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:Far be it from me to interfere where no thought is taking place, but Mary gave clear verbal consent to bearing God's son and no sex is proposed to have taken place. So please take your undermining of the seriousness of rape elsewhere. ] (]) 06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:: In she says "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word", but Gabriel hasn't offered her any choice in the matter in the preceding verses &mdash; e.g. "The Holy Ghost '''shall''' come upon thee, and the power of the Highest '''shall''' overshadow thee" (emphasis added) &mdash; so it's hard to view it as "consent" in any meaningful sense. But I agree that it's silly to equate magic impregnation in a made-up story with actual rape. ] (]) 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Even so, Mary clearly expresses joy because of what has happened to her in Luke 1:46-49, she considered it a wonderful thing. - ] (]) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::"Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." - but more to the point, I don't think the will/shall distinction exists in Koine Greek, the original language of Luke's Gospel. You're arguing semantics in modern English; I think that Greek (like Latin) uses a simple future tense for this kind of purpose, with no particular shade of meaning for things that will definitely happen, probably happen, or are willed to happen. But then the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a travesty of scholarship, and not a reliable source. ] (]) 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

== Bradford riots against Ahmadis ==

How come there are no articles about a riot that happened in Bradford in the 1970s against the Ahmadis? Is there a news article about it? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There have been many race riots in West Yorkshire over the years; Misplaced Pages has articles on the ]; it's a very short article right now. Perhaps that's the one you are thinking of? Otherwise Misplaced Pages does have a pretty extensive article on the much later ]. --]''''']''''' 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::Although ] is in ]. If anybody can find a reference supporting this, it could be added to our ] article. I could only find , which says; "The mid 1980s witnessed anti-Ahmadi riots in Bradford which received national press coverage" (p. 21). Apparently this was not a "race riot" but ] between different traditions within Islam. ] (]) 08:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

== Does Mahabharata refer to any advanced technologies? ==

It seems to be a prominent notion on internet that some weapons in Mahabharata (Brahmastra) refers to nuclear weapon and I am pretty confused.--] (]) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:Something at ]... -- ] (]) 03:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:It's an idea primarily put forward by ], which can be easily debunked. People have to make a living somehow - even ]. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 09:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:. ] (]) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::There is no limit to people's imagination, either that of the people in the past who made these stories, or that of the people who are trying to 'decipher' them. I can imagine that in 10,000 years, pseudohistorians will be pointing out passages from Harry Potter, saying, "Look! They MUST have had them in those far off days, too! Cleaning equipment that you can ride in the air with no visible propulsion system, and guided only by the (unmentioned) wi-fi connected chip in your brain - SAME AS US!" <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 11:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::From a quick search I found - it sounds like this show was just out and out lying, which pisses me off. Even if your chosen field of study is nuclear interpretations of the Mahabharata, there is still an honest way to do it and a dishonest way to do it. We have an article on ], incidentally. What's interesting is that does seem to be full of battle with various super-weapons. While I highly doubt that these are memories of nukes, it doesn't seem impossible that someone could have been inspired by some sort of meteorite impact or volcanic activity, or by lesser excesses of war technology from ancient times. What is interesting is that they could have had ideas of advanced, fiery weapons and of the moral issues that come with them. ] (]) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:This dates back to Dayananda Sarasvati, who claimed to have found evidence of aircraft, steamships and modern weaponry in the Vedas. Of course, such claims are quite distinct from the real possibility that ancient cultures had technologies that were subsequently lost. That's quite common in human history. ] (]) 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:Are there any scientific evidences about nukes before human civilisation? I think one of the site I visited says there are some strange crystals, which can be found in nuclear expolsion sites, in an ancient city ruin--though the wording is very vague and I guess meteorite can have similar effects.--] (]) 04:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

== Presidential primaries in 1964 ==

Why received incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 only 17 percent of the primary votes and Gov. Pat Brown, who did not challenge the president for the nomination, far more votes? Isn't 17 percent a real bad record for a sitting president? I know that many states did not have primary elections in 1964, but why was LBJ nominated ''without opposition'', despite he didn't win most of the primaries? Thanks. --] (]) 11:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:The first, and most important, thing is that only 16 states had primary elections for the Democratic party. The rest of the states chose their representatives to the ] (where the actual nomination of the party's candidate occurs) via some form of ], which in many states amounts to "a bunch of old guys in a ]". Pat Brown's high ''popular'' vote in the primary elections can be explained by noting that a) Pat Brown was from California and b) Johnson was ''not even on the ballot in the California primary''. Texas, the other really large state by population, and Johnson's home state ''didn't hold a Democratic Party primary election.'' Look, the easiest way to explain it is this: The modern Presidential Primary system didn't really exist nationwide in 1964, it only existed in a few states and even in those states, it didn't run the same way it does today. States had a mishmash of methods to select delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and most states didn't have widespread, formal primary elections whereby the general party voters got to have a say in who the delegates would be pledged to. I won't say such primaries were ''entirely'' meaningless in 1964. Just that they didn't have the formalized place in the election process they do today. --]''''']''''' 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:See also ]. ] (]) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

== Medieval Cavalry ==

Hey, I have three questions regarding cavalry in the middle ages. The first question I have asked once before here on wiki, two years ago or so, but I didn't get much answers, and despite my attempts I have found very little info about it myself. So I try again, hoping for more response.

1. Cavalry tactics obviously varied a bit depending on the time-period and from region to region, but generally, what we hear or read about is the Wedge-formation and cavalry being used vs infantry - then about how pikemen would counter the threat posed from cavalry. What I'm trying to find out about is Mounted knights vs mounted knights / Cavalry vs Cavalry. What formations would they adopt? If it was heavy vs light cavalry, then the light cav. would probably flee... but in a fair fight, then what? If, say 20 light vs 20 light or 20 heavy vs 20 heavy would clash, then how would they organize themselves, and would they adopt any formation at all? Whether they used a wedge or another tactic, one should think that they would basically cancel each other out, unless one of the sides knew a formation that the other didn't, one that was particularly effective. I guess the main reason why info is hard to come by on this subject is that battles with mounted vs mounted probably didn't occur so often.

2. Can you define the meaning of medium and heavy cavalry? Was it just that a horse was clad in armor and that the rider was also wearing heavy armor that made it 'heavy cavalry', or did it also depend on what type of horse (destrier, courser, rouncey...) it was and how the horse had been bred, trained and fed? As for what the horse was wearing; I occasionally see pictures and drawings of what is supposedly heavy cavalry horses, even when it has no armour. It might simply be dressed in cloth that covers its head and torso. Obviously, light Cavalry is easier to define; light armor, little weight, fast horse used for skirmishes/guerrilla warfare and scouting, or chasing. But where does that leave medium cavalry? Were most mounted units considered medium cavalry? The term 'medium cavalry' is perhaps less used than the other two, but when reading about these things the term is used relatively often anyhow, but it never seem to explain what makes a mounted unit medium cavalry. Same with heavy cavalry, which is why I hope someone can help define it for me?

3. The "cape" or "clothes for horses" that I mentioned above, covering its head and torso, what is it called? I once saw it referred to as a "baucant", but googling it or searching in various search engines provide nothing. All I have learned is that this word means "spotted horse" or something of the like, coming from old French; "bauçant". I'm sure there must be a word for it.


If it makes it easier, let's narrow it down to a shorter period rather than the entire middle ages - 1100 to 1250. Let's also mainly stay in Europe, especially France when it comes to heavy cavalry. France were famous for it. Let's also throw in Saracens and Moors, which were more known for their light cavalry and which were often enemies of Europeans. So that should give you an idea of where in the world I want to focus.
] (]) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:Although trained as a medievalist, I'm more of a literary guy than a military guy, so I don't think I can help much with questions 1 and 2. With regard to number 3, however, see the article ] (and see ] for equine armor). ] (]) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:The medieval period ended with the ] in 1453. Pikemen were very rare during the medieval period. The Swiss and their allies were the only users of medieval pikemen. ]s adopted the pike in 1487 and the Scots after 1512. The pike and the ] were weapons of the early modern period.
:1. Wedge was a relatively rare tactic as knights were not trained in it. Most knights attacked in line. Knights regarded infantry as beneath them and many knights would charge enemy knights on sight and without orders.
:2. Light cavalry fought in loose formation or as skirmishers. Medium cavalry fought in close formation. Medium cavalry could be light cavalry in close formation. Heavy cavalry and knights fought in close formation. Most European cavalry would be heavy cavalry or knights, especially in the second half of the medieval period.<br>] (]) 02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::2. No, heavy cavalry wearing barding with knights in full armour are knights. Heavy cavalry is unbarded. Fully armoured knights on unbarded horses are heavy cavalry. The monks who drew the pictures of knights were in their monasteries during battles. The pictures drawn by monks are artist impressions.<br>] (]) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

== "Not for Federal Use" Drivers License and Form I - 9 ==

I am to start a new job tomorrow. I gave my drivers license to the HR person and was told that because my drivers license says "Not for Federal Use" and the I-9 Form was a federal document, I had to either provide my passport (which I don't have) or go to the DMV and pay the fee for a new drivers license that can be used federally. I believe, he was wrong and told him so. He said he was doing this for a long time and what he was telling me was correct. I told him that other forms of state ID were permitted and that his facility was a private company, not a federal building, and that I believe that clause was in reference to flying. How can we get the I-9 for changed to better convey this message to HR for dummies? Or is he totally right? Anxiously awaiting reply. Thank you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This sounds like a request for ]. You should contact someone who knows what the law is in your jurisdiction, and not ask for dubious advice from random strangers on the internet. --]''''']''''' 19:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:We cannot give legal advice. But I can direct you to the information given by the govt here , and recommend you look at the form carefully here , including List B item 1. Beyond that you'll have to sort it out with your own HR or legal counsel. Good luck, ] (]) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

: Legal advice or not, I would like to know what "Not for Federal Use" means here! Maybe you're not allowed to drive a car on Federal property. —] (]) 00:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

See ] and this example of how West Virginia explains it: http://www.transportation.wv.gov/dmv/drivers-licenses/Pages/default.aspx. ] (]) 04:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

== Did King Leonidas really kick a Persian emissary down a well? ==

As seen in famous "THIS IS SPARTA!" scene from the movie "300". Is this an actuall historical fact? Just wondering, thanks. --] (]) 22:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:Probably not. 300 isn't based on history, it's based on Frank Miller's hazy recollection of a movie he saw decades ago that was based on romanticized novels based on legends based on accounts written well after the war. ] (]) 22:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:And then there's the consideration that dropping a body in the well is pretty much poisoning the local water supply. ] (]) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::Safer to kick someone into an ''abandoned'' well. Not that I know if they did. ] ] 00:01, ], ] (UTC)
:::I don't know whether it's true or whether it was Leonidas personally but the Persian emissary down a well is an old claim. See ] which references a translation of ] at . ] (]) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Aye. What I meant was I didn't know whether it was a functional well. ] ] 00:45, ], ] (UTC)

*Basically, according to the best historical records we have, Persia sent an ambassador demanding submission, which at the time was in the form of "earth and water". (If you give earth and water then you have submitted to the greater power.) The Spartans, according to an Athenian account, said, "ok, we have some of each", and threw the ambassadors down a well. ] does not mention kicks or any shouting. --] (]) 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

= March 12 =

Latest revision as of 10:40, 24 January 2025

Welcome to the humanities section
of 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.


Ready? Ask a new question!


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.
See also:

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[REDACTED] 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)
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)

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

  1. Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU?
  2. Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries?
  3. Why is Russia not in NATO?
  4. If all African countries are in AU, why are all European countries not in EU?
  5. Why Faroe Islands and Greenland have not become sovereign states yet?
  6. Can non-sovereign states or country subdivisions have embassies?
  7. 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)
    1. See: United Kingdom and the euro
    2. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not meet the criteria for joining the European Union
    3. If you google "Nato's primary purpose", you will know.
    4. The two do not have logical connection.
    5. They are too small to be an independent country
    6. Non-sovereign states or countries, for example Wales and Scotland, are countries within a sovereign state. They don't have embassies of their own.
    7. 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)
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)
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)

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)
I assumed that everyone was referring to independent countries. I think this is exactly what the question is about. Our article says Taiwan is part of China. China is a country. So, Taiwan is part of a country and not a country by itself. But, the article says it is a country. So, it is independent. It isn't part of China. Which is true? Both? 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"Our article says Taiwan is part of China." Where does it say that? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
To further complicate the issue with Taiwan... When the United States had a trade ban with China, most of the cheap goods shipped into the United States had a "Made in Taiwan" sticker. That was OK because hte United States recognized Taiwan as being completely separate from China. It was a bit odd that Taiwan could produce as much as it did. The reality is that they simply made "Made in Taiwan" stickers and put them on Chinese goods before sending them to the United States. When the trade ban was lifted, there was no need to route all the goods through Taiwan. Now, everything has "Made in China" stickers on them and the United States no longer recognizes Taiwan as an independent country. From a simplistic point of view, it appears that the recognition of status was based on convenience rather than political standing. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 15:14, 22 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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
There is the ability to delegate powers to Counsellors of State. There are restrictions on what powers can be delegated in section 6(1) of the Regency Act 1937, but I don't see anything prohibiting the monarch from delegating the power to grant Royal Assent. He could then temporarily absent himself from the UK (perhaps on an impromptu trip to another Commonwealth Realm) so that the Counsellors of State could grant such Assent during his absence. Proteus (Talk) 15:40, 23 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

  1. "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)

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)
You can buy one on eBay for £5.99. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Fun fact: a copy of The Narrow Way figures in A. A. Milne's novel The Red House Mystery. —Tamfang (talk) 22:26, 20 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

Yellow cartouche*grim*Official portrait?*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)

The framed portraits hanging on the wall in these photos are an official portrait from December 15, 2016, of the then president-elect. The one with bared teeth is from October 6, 2017, when Trump was in office. For two more recent official mug shots, look here.  --Lambiam 12:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Do you know why the president-elect photo is not even uploaded in Commons? Shouldn't it be included in commons:Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (First presidency)? --KnightMove (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The most plausible reason that it was not uploaded is that no one missed it. Among those aware of its existence and having the wherewithal to find it on the Web and to upload it to the Commons, no one may have realized it had not already been uploaded. Or they may not have felt a need; there is no shortage of images in the relevant articles.
Strictly speaking, it does not belong in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (first presidency), as Trump was not yet president. However, Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (second presidency) features nothing but lugubrious portraits of the president-reelect.  --Lambiam 22:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

January 20

Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin

I am trying to find the illustration’s description from the original source: Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin including species name and description for these sea anemones: https://www.arsvalue.com/it/lotti/541811/contarini-nicolo-bertolucci-1780-1849-trattato-delle-attinie-ed-osservazio . I requested it on the resource request page but was not able to find where in the source these illustrations are or where their descriptions are. It doesn’t help that I can’t read Italian. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently you need to locate an occurrence of "(TAV VII)" or "(TAV XII)" in the text. --Askedonty (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) References to the illustration are in the form "tavolo VII" or "tav. VII". So, for example, page 99 refers to fig. 1 e 2. The text refers to the development of the actinae being studied without precise identification, specifically to their sprouting new tentacles, not being (contra Spix) a prolongation of the skin of the base, but from parts of the body. The same page has a reference to fig. 3.  --Lambiam 12:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry where are you seeing this page 99 you are referring to? KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to link. It is here (and also here).  --Lambiam 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Pu Yi

Although member of the Chinese Communist Party, the last Emperor was an anti-communist and counter-revolutionnair until his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.179.151 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Block evasion. Dekimasuよ! 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I imagine that during the Cultural Revolution, it was wise to keep one's opinions to one's self. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Jiang Qing did apparently not get the memo.  --Lambiam 22:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Situational strength can give psychological pressure on the individual and affect his or her behaviours. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

January 21

text of executive order

Hi. On 2025-01-20, POTUS signed an executive order titled "Ending Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants". This event has been reported by virtually every major news outlet in the world.

It is now 2025-01-20 9PM Washington time, and I have been trying to find the exact text, or even portions of its text, for a while now, to no avail.

1. Is the full text of this executive order available to the general public?

This Library of Congress site claims that: "All Executive Orders and Proclamations issued after March 1936 are required by law to be published in the Federal Register."

2. Assuming that the above claim is true, is there any requirement or guideline on how quickly an EO is published after it has been signed by POTUS? Epideurus (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. The full text was posted some time around 2025-01-20 8:45PM Washington time. None of the news agencies reporting before that got the title right, so I'm guessing that the title of the EO was only released when its full text was released. Epideurus (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As I read the order literally, it implies that persons to which birthright citizenship is denied by force of Section 2 (a) of the order can also not be naturalized at a later date (or, if they can, no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing the acquired citizenship).  --Lambiam 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Deadline for ratification of amendments to the US constitution

Hello, and thank you for this opportunity to ask the experts. There's been talk recently about the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution after former president Biden stated the he considered the amendment to be ratified and part of the US constitution, as it had been ratified by 38 states, reaching the bar of three quarters of the states the Article 5 of the US constitution sets.

The National Archives disagreed and pointed to a deadline (later extended) for ratification set by Congress; since the required number of states had not been reached by the final deadline and since the deadline had not been extended further, it said, the amendment could not be considered ratified.

This appears to be plainly at odds with the text of Article Five of the United States Constitution, which contains no mention of Congress being able to impose a deadline, or in fact any other requirement, for the ratification process. The best argument I've seen in non-scholarly sources is, in essence, that "the 5th Amendment is silent on this", but that strikes me as unconvincing. The 5th prescribes a process, and there is no reason (that is readily apparent to me) to presume that this process may be changed by Congress in either direction. Just like Congress may not declare that ratification by one half of the states (rather than three quarters) is sufficient, it may not impose that additional steps must be taken or additional hurdles passed: say, it may not require that four fifths of the states must ratify and that three quarters is not enough. The Constitution prescribes what conditions are necessary for an Amendment to become part of the Constitution — but it also dictates that when these conditions are met, this does happen.

As such I find the National Archives' position to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the 5th, and Congress's attempt to impose an additional requirement in the form of a deadline strikes me as out of line with the Constitution, rendering said additional requirement null and void.

That said, and this is where my question comes in, I am not a legal expert. I haven't studied law, nor do I work in or with law in any way; I am merely curious. And although appeals to authority are fallacious as far as logical reasoning is concerned, I don't doubt that the National Archives (as well as, presumably, Congressional staff) have considered this matter and concluded that yes, a) the imposition of a deadline by Congress, above and beyond the process prescribed by the 5th, is constitutional; b) meeting of said deadline is then an additional condition for ratification; and c) since this deadline has not been met here, the ERA is not part of the Constitution.

And my question is: why? On what legal basis? Surely Congress cannot create additional requirements out of whole cloth; there must be some form of authorization in it. What's more, since we are talking about a process prescribed by the Constitution itself, said authority must itself be grounded in the Constitution, rather than taking the form of e.g. a simple law (Congress cannot arbitrarily empower itself to change the rules and processes laid down by the Constitution).

I would be very grateful if someone with a background in law (professional or otherwise) could explain this to me. Thank you very much! 2003:D5:AF0E:DE00:95C4:DF2F:3B13:850E (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I ain't no lawyer, but as I recall, the deadline was stated within the amendment proposal itself. That was the case with a few other amendments also, but they were ratified within the time limit, so there was no issue. It's possible someone will take this issue to court, and ultimately the Supreme Court would have to decide if that type of clause is valid. On the flip side, there is the most recent amendment, which prohibits Congress from giving itself a raise without an intervening election of Representatives. That one was in the wind for like 200 years, lacking a deadline. When it was finally ratified, it stood. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated! I didn't know the deadline was in the proposal itself. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this should make a difference, since for as long as the proposed Amendment is no part of the Constitution, it really is not part of the Constitution and should not be able to inform or affect other provisions of the Constitution. That said I of course agree that it would take the Supreme Court to decide the issue for good. Thanks again! 2003:D5:AF0E:DE00:C4C7:395C:56A3:A782 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The SCOTUS may be quite busy with executive orders for a while. Quite possible, that the President has to appoint another 6 or 12 judges to cope with all that work load. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The courts in general views these things as political questions. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The deadline for the ERA was mentioned in a resolving clause before the text of the amendment itself. In other cases, such as the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the deadline was contained in the amendment itself. Whether this makes any practical difference is a question for the courts. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is the National Archives rather than a legal/constitutional authority such as the Supreme Court that gets to decide whether a proposed amendment has become ratified or not, ie. become law or not. -- Jack of Oz 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There is the Executive, in this case the National Archives, doing what the Chief Executive ordered them to do. And there is Congress, which set the rules. This sounds like a political question. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
By a statute that took effect in 1984, the task of certifying ratifications of amendments to the US Constitution has been given to the Archivist of the United States, which is why the interpretation of the National Archives (that is, the Archivist) matters. One might argue that this statute is unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not include a provision requiring certification for ratification to take effect, unlike for other federal processes that depend on the outcomes from the several states. AFAIK the constitutionality of the statute, or any of its predecessors (like this one) has never been challenged in court.  --Lambiam 10:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I see. Thank you, Lambiam. -- Jack of Oz 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
But of course there must always be some form of official certification. That would be the case for any law passed to a state governor or the president for signing, just as it must be for a constitutional change. Otherwise, anyone could claim that a proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified by a sufficient number of states and must now become part of the law of the USA. Surely the system depends on not just anyone claiming this, but a properly constituted authority with the legal power/responsibility to make such a certification. -- Jack of Oz 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that there was no certification procedure for the original ratification of the United States Constitution; actually, the amendment provision of the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous approval of the states, was bypassed. I don't think there was already one in place for the Bill of Rights either – when Congress met on on January 18, 1792, the President simply informed them that he had "a copy of an exemplified copy of an Act of the Legislature of Vermont, ratifying" the amendements, which implied a sufficient number of instruments of ratification had been received. The procedure for the ratification of the electoral votes in presidential elections was only specified in the Twelfth Amendment; the 1796 United States presidential election managed to do without. I agree, though, that there ought to be an official procedure for the ratification of constitutional amendments, but is the ability of Congress to inspect . The question is, is Congress passing (by simple majorities) a bill that such and such procedure shall be it, which is then signed into law by the President, enough to make it official and binding?
The US Constitution does not define who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. At the moment this is a hot issue. If Congress passes a bill, next signed into law, declaring that the definition is made by executive order, is the issue thereby settled?  --Lambiam 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not settled until the Supreme Court says it is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's the text:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to CH. J. Res. 208] equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled {two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:" DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

January 22

Sir John Simon's soul

"Simon has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into his soul" is a quotation attributed to David Lloyd George. I have been unable to come up with a definitive source, and neither Roy Jenkins (in The Chancellors), nor Duncan Brack (in The Dictionary of Liberal Quotations) have been able to either. Can the RefDeskers do better? Thank you. I felt sure I'd asked this here before, but I cannot find any trace of it in the archives. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked into this question a while ago. The earliest evidence I could find came from a diary entry by Sir George Riddell for 14th December 1912:
The other day F. E. Smith told me a good story of a member who, when speaking in the House of Commons, remarked, "Mr. So-and-So has sat for so long on the fence that the iron has entered into his soul".
It's here. Shame that no-one's named. --Antiquary (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Both parties were named by Konni Zilliacus in 1935. Google Books also claims to have it in a version naming Lloyd George and Simon in a 1931 number of the New Statesman, but I find their dating of "Snippet view" periodicals unreliable. --Antiquary (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I found a 1922 case of "Who was it who said of a Free Church leader: "he has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into his soul"?". DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Ha! The Spring 1905 number of Forest Leaves magazine (here at vol. II, no. 2, p. 16) gives us this: "Winston Churchill said that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman 'had sat so long on the fence that the iron had entered into his soul.'" A rare example, then, of Churchillian Drift in reverse. --Antiquary (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
One more Google search tells us that Churchill said this at a meeting of the Bow and Bromley Conservative Association in, apparently, April 1905. --Antiquary (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh well done! I'd always rather associated it with Manchuria. Lloyd George does have a certain gravitational pull for put-downs. I can't quite see him actually nicking one of Churchill's, and I think he would not want to associate himself, even indirectly, with such a negative comment about CB. I'm reminded by Jeeves and the Yule-tide Spirit that it is an echo of Psalm 105:18 in the Prayer Book. If I were Lawrence Frances Flick I would be VERY careful about the choice of type-face for my bookmarks DuncanHill (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I found the Forest Leaves version (with a couple more from the column) in The Mail (Dublin) 4 January 1905. Interestingly, there was an article in lots of local papers in January 1905 which mention the iron entering Lloyd George's soul as a result of how power is abused in the hands of an ascendant Church. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. Got a link to the Mail version? --Antiquary (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
(ec) The Belfast Telegraph - Thursday 23 May 1907 says that Mr Churchill made the dig at CB "at Bow, February 19, 1902". Dublin Mail 4 Jan 1905 Column called "Mixed Metaphors" DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The "iron entered his/my/our soul(s)" trope seems very common at the time, usually of course in a more positive sense. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
And here is a report of Churchill addressing the Annual Meeting of the Bow and Bromley Conservative Association from the Derby Daily Telegraph Thursday 20 February 1902 Mr. Winston Churchill and the War. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The report appears in many local papers. The report in the Westminster Gazette says CB has NOT (my emphasis) sat so long on the fence that the iron has entered his soul. DuncanHill (talk)
If you have access to a copy it might be worth taking a look at the eight-volume Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, edited by Robert Rhodes James. --Antiquary (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Not in Volume I, where it should be. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The anecdote is told in a Lloyd George–John Simon version on page 472 of The New Statesman and Nation issue of October 17, 1931:
Sir John Simon's acidity of temperament and capacity for being a little in several camps but beloved by none led his late chief to remark—or so I'm told—that "Sir John has sat so long on the fence, that the iron has entered into his soul."             Critic.
Here one can verify, in spite of the snippetness of the permitted views, that this indeed the issue of this date. So it is indeed true that Lloyd George "is said" (or, more precisely, "has been said") to have commented this – although using a slightly different word order and punctuation than the quotation in our article. It is, of course, by no means sure that he actually has done so.  --Lambiam 14:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Here it is on Archive.org. It is Volume II Number 34, despite what Google claims. DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, the Churchill/Campbell-Bannerman version was still being quoted as "famous" as late as 1950, so the two variants co-existed for many years. --Antiquary (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

January 23

Marco Guidetti

Who was Marco Guidetti in relation to De Tomaso Pantera? This Turbo wrapper says "Marco Guidetti Pentera de Tomaso", but my search didn't yield any meaningful results for him, including books. My guess he could be this one, but not sure. Brandmeister 10:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The creator(s) of these Turbo wrappers misspelled "Pantera", so they were not overly careful. Perhaps they misinterpreted the name of the author of the photograph as being the name of the car model.  --Lambiam 15:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
One possibility is that the particular vehicle shown was owned by a Marco Guidetti, possibly the movie designer and art director of that name who worked on Mad Max and other films: IMDb link (unreliable source) here. Relatedly, he may instead have been involved in designing the model's styling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
A Marco Guidetti is credited to authoring and photographing Valentino Rossi : campione and a Marco Guidetti also authored JAGUAR . So it appears likely it is the name of the photographer as suggested by Lambiam when the gum was recently reintroduced, although this doesn't rule out the alternative possibilities that they are the car's owner or its designer as suggested by The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195. Modocc (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
We also haven't yet ruled out the author/photographer/car designer(?) and the film designer being the same person, although the car originated arond 1970 and film guy's career seems to have started around 2003. Of course, 'Marco Guidetti' cannot be that uncommon a name in Italy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Probable photo, and eulogy of author/photographer Marco Guidetti: The photographer who was.. --Askedonty (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Australian Antarctic Territory population

What was the population of the Australian Antarctic Territory in the 2021 Australian census? I assumed this would easily be discoverable with a Google search, but I couldn't find this information from the ABS. Since the census counts people where they are on census night (and not where they live permanently), since Davis Station is inhabited year-round, and since the AAT is considered an external territory of Australia, the AAT should have been covered by the census (comparable to Christmas Island, the Cocos, etc) and should have had a non-zero population on census night. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The external territories are listed here: . Quoting our article "Australia is an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. Under section 4, all territorial claims are held in abeyance." Which would appear to explain why it's not listed. Modocc (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
"Expeditioners to Australian bases in the Australian Antarctic Territory (and other locations) are included in the Census. Their 'place of enumeration' is an Offshore Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) in Tasmania." -- Jack of Oz 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Hm, that's interesting. I wonder what it is? I went to https://maps.abs.gov.au (which gives you information on an SA1-level) and ran a search for "Antarctic", and there were two called "Antarctic Circle" and "New Antarctica", but they're in southeastern Brisbane and near the Sydney CBD :-\ Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Explain meme?

I understand what the person is trying to imply about Elon Musk, but I don't understand what the second picture is getting at. Is that Prince Harry and is that relevant? I'm pretty clueless so be patient. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:512B (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Chris Hemsworth. The second image is a reverse angle showing the listener's response, and the meme is all about a good example of a facial expression expressing doubt. Originally the response by the listener was "is he though?". See . -- zzuuzz 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I'm not sure I wanted to know that the Mighty Thor looks like that now. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:512B (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it's a bit cultural. I taught at the high school Chris Hemsworth attended, and picked that look instantly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

January 24

In which place, first-cousin-once-removed marriage is not allowed?

In which place, first-cousin-once-removed marriage is not allowed? 220.132.216.52 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's cousin marriage article will answer your question. Shantavira| 09:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions Add topic