Revision as of 19:11, 29 January 2016 editRussell.mo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,708 edits →Virginity← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:12, 22 January 2025 edit undoScsbot (talk | contribs)Bots240,562 edits edited by robot: archiving January 7 | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{ |
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | ||
] | |||
{{pp|vandalism|small=yes}} | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
</noinclude> | |||
]</noinclude> | |||
= January 8 = | |||
== ''The Nest'' magazine, UK, 1920s == | |||
= January 24 = | |||
I have a copy of {{cite book | title = The Grocer's Window Book | year = 1922 | location = London | publisher = The Nest Magazine }}, "arranged by The Editor of ''The Nest''". The address of ''The Nest'' Magazine is given as 15 Arthur Street, London, EC4. It contains suggestions for arranging window displays in an attractive manner to attract customers into independent grocer's shops. I would be interested to know more about ''The Nest''. I suspect it may have something to do with Nestles Milk, as 1) the back cover is a full-page advertisement for Nestles and Ideal Milk, and there are several other adverts for Nestles products in the book, and 2) one of the suggested window displays involves spelling out "IDEAL" with tins of Ideal Milk. Thank you, ] (]) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Impromptu Masses == | |||
:{{Tq|Nest, 1922. M.—1st. 6d. Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co., 15 Arthur Street, E.c.4}} according to ''Willing's press guide and advertisers directory and handbook.'' I also found it in ''The Newspaper press directory and advertisers' guide,'' which merely confirms the address and the price of sixpence. Both of these were for the year 1922, which suggests to me that the magazine might not have survived into 1923. M signifies monthly, and 1st probably means published on the 1st of the month. ] ] 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The recent major blizzard in the eastern USA stranded lots of people on lots of highways, and numerous news sources are talking about one specific incident: a group of Catholic students, with a priest from the Dakotas as one of the chaperones, wanted to worship together while stuck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in ], so the students gathered snow to form an altar, and the priest celebrated Mass. , if you're interested. Questions: | |||
#When a priest travels outside the diocese of which his parish is a component, does he normally need permission from the local ordinary to celebrate Mass? And if so, is there an exception for extraordinary circumstances, like this one? Bedford County is in the ], but given the weather and similar issues, I don't imagine them being able to reach Bishop ] just to get special permission for a Mass. | |||
#Given the number of items (candles, for example) used in a typical Mass, and the absence of ordinary altar materials along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I'm left wondering about the details. Does canon law make exceptions for "emergency" situations in which the faithful desire a Mass and some of the components are missing? And can the priest consecrate the snow pile as an altar? ] mentions the universal use of altars (I don't imagine that anyone's going to compare this priest to Theodore, Bishop of Tyre, celebrating Mass on the hands of his deacons), but I didn't see anything here about temporary altars. | |||
] (]) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Historical U.S. population data by age (year 1968) == | |||
:: Just a quick thought. Maybe they are using the word "mass" loosely? Not so much of a "real" mass, as much as it is a priest simply leading them in prayer? Perhaps? ] (]) 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
In the year 1968, what percentage of the United States population was under 25 years old? I am wondering about this because I am watching the movie ], and want to know if a percentage claimed in the film was pulled out of a hat or was based in fact. ] (]) 04:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Here you go,a full discussion of it.Basically,yes he can.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=798119 ] (]) 08:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:What percentage did they give? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::52% (it's on the movie poster). ] ] 16:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Tabel No. 6 in the (p. 8) gives, for 1960, {{val|80093}} Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of {{val|180007}} Kpeople, corresponding to 44.5%, and, for 1970, {{val|94095}} Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of {{val|204265}} Kpeople, corresponding to 46.1%. Interpolation results in an estimate of 45.8% for 1968. --] 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{small|Who are Kpeople? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
:::Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. ] (]) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::{{small|So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
:::::{{small|Or 1 kiloperson. — ]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
== Countries with greatest land mass == | |||
::As to the paraphernalia required, see . ] (]) 17:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Wow! I've just found a for GBP 14.72 (= USD 21.00) with free delivery. Seems to be aimed at the Protestant market though. ] (]) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
*Yes, per my informant, a mass has to be celebrated with an altar, as noted above, and an altar requires the presence of ''at least'' a third-order relic. First-order relics include body parts, second-order relics are things such as belongings, and third-order relics are ''"associated"'' with a saint. See ]. The source for this comment is my father, who was educated by ]s before ]; so take my comment for what it is. But he says most priests carry third-order relics, and one can be assured Vatican II did not make that requirement stricter. Also, what news source is going to enquire whether the priest was carrying a relic? ] (]) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Can someone please fill in these blanks? Thank you. | |||
== Any serial killers, spree killers, or mass murderers that span across generations in a family? == | |||
1. Currently, the USA ranks as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass. | |||
Regarding serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers: are there any examples of such killers that span a generation? In other words, as an example, the father was a serial killer, and the son ended up being one, also. I specify serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers simply to distinguish them from "garden variety" and "everyday" typical murders. I am quite sure there are a lot of parents/children who would fall into that latter category. Thanks. ] (]) 07:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:If you're counting those who were never arrested and just called the shots, ] and ] come to mind. ] also had ] in 1943. Francis Paul Weaver's ] and grandfather were both convicted of double murders, then ] ] 08:19, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::] and his adoptive son ]? ] and ]? If you include state crimes, there are many examples. --] (]) 09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::And indeed, if you include organised crime (and the variant of it sometimes called "business"), there should be many examples. I'm quite sure that the business of the ] was passed down the family line. --] (]) 11:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
2. If the USA were to "annex" or "acquire" both Canada and Greenland, the USA would rank as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass. | |||
:::: Hmmm. I never thought about organized crime and the Mafia, etc. I am sure they must run across generations of same-family killers. But, I guess that is more of a "business enterprise", rather than a random act of murder (like a Ted Bundy or a ]). I think? ] (]) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Thanks. ] (]) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: This is all very witty (and true) but I doubt this is what the OP is looking for. "More matter, with less art", is likely to be more useful to the OP, if that's your goal. Now this is probably not going to satisfy the OP either, but I'll offer it anyway: ] with his daughter (and incestuous lover) Ágnes. The problem with this case is probably that they were accomplices in one killing spree, not independent killers several years or decades apart. <small><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:blue">Contact ] ]</small> 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:See ], which gives a nuanced answer to your first question, and the answer to your second question is obvious from the data in the article.-] (]) 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:4 and 1. But the chance of Trump to annex Canada is close to zero. ] (]) 09:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Also the US somehow annexing Greenland is infinitely improbable. It's part of the European Union. ] (]) 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Trump's presidential term is four years and the process of discussion would take longer than that. ] (]) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::No it isn't. ] (]) 00:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes it is effectively: ] says "all citizens of the Realm of Denmark residing in Greenland (Greenlandic nationals) are EU citizens". ] (]) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::But Denmark is a NATO member. The US invading Greenland will trigger ]. --] 11:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Also, US is a member of NATO. The situation will be very complicated. ] (]) 11:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Please don't attribute any significance to the Orange Lunatic's weird brain processes. He makes outlandish statements all the time, for one and only one reason: to get attention. And most people fall for it, expertly led by the world's media. He has the same self-involved strategy that any pre-vocal child has: anything's fair game as long as I get the attention I crave. This is completely normal in small children. In presidents of the United States of America, not so much. -- ] </sup></span>]] 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Aside from the obvious BLP violation in referring to our presidents as "serial killers", the definition of a serial killer is pretty specific and narrow. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Trump is, if nothing else, a master at manipulating the media. He can talk all he wants, but until he does something, it's just talk. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I meant to imply they're mass murderers, not serial killers. They technically aren't, so I didn't technically refer to them as such. I'm technically innocent. Besides, BLP is looser about public figures, especially when the claim's already out there. ] is 21-0 at prosecuting murders, put Manson away for not technically killing anyone and wrote '']''. ] ] 14:50, ], ] (UTC) | |||
**:All politicians are actors and good actors do what the role requires them to do whether they like it or not. What we need to do is see what they did, not what they preached. ] (]) 19:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Um, they weren't mass murderers either. --] 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Indeed, this is one of the several cases of people with a liberal agenda trying to push their POV here. ] (]) 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Not every liberal considers their president to be a serial killer. Warfare, capital punishment and abortion may be homicides of a sort, but legally they are not murder. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Most importantly, these are almost certainly not the kind of cases the OP was looking for. When about to give a query a clever and entertaining answer think whether it may not also take the whole thread on a tangent and in the end deny the OP answers that ''would'' have been of interest to him. <small><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:blue">Contact ] ]</small> 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
= January 11 = | |||
:The legendary ] was a 17th century Scottish alleged serial killer, whose whole family - wife, children and grandchildren - were said to have participated in mass murder. To be fair, the victims were eaten by the family afterwards, which seems less wasteful somehow. ] (]) 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==JeJu AirFlight 2216 == | |||
Thanks, all. After reading the responses, I re-read my original question. And I guess I was not clear. So, to clarify: I am looking for multiple generations of the same family who committed the crimes a generation apart. Not family members who "worked together" on the same crime. For example, something like this: Ted Bundy was a serial killer in 1980; his son became a serial killer in 2000. Stuff like that. ''Not'' a father and son -- together -- went out and did serial killings. Thanks. ] (]) 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Is this the beginning of a new conspiracy theory? | |||
::Ward Weaver Jr. killed two or more victims in multiple locations with almost no time break between murders. Seems to make him a ], by FBI standards. 21 years later, his kid did much the same, just with a longer break between victims. If you need them to be serial killers, I know of no third murder for the latter, but it wouldn't be surprising, given all the times he ''was'' caught assaulting and raping girls over the decades. As for his dad, there's a certain vibe of habit one gives off when murdering young hitchhikers, rather than a garden-variety wife, business partner or drug dealer. Just hunches, though. ] ] 22:01, ], ] (UTC) | |||
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? | |||
::: As far as ]: the article says that the son only committed that ''one'' murder. Were there more? The article says: ''On February 17, 2014, Weaver's son Francis was arrested and charged with murder. He and three others had allegedly robbed and killed a drug dealer in Canby, Oregon the day prior.'' ] (]) 04:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I added that part yesterday, thanks to this thread. Nothing proven in court on him, so far. But Junior is III's dad, not his son. Those are the two I mean. ] ] 05:06, ], ] (UTC) | |||
:Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? ] (]) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I would say that the answer is that nobody has found one and they're trying to be helpful by mentioning cases that are similar to the one you're looking for. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Yury Odnacheva, son of ], was in 2009, but that was only one murder, not 109. There are a few father/son (and mother/son) pairings listed at ], but that doesn't satisfy the criterion of separate crimes. ] (]) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:<small>While violence "breeding" violence (and so to with sexual assault) isn't uncommon, one of the more extreme cases albeit not fitting the OP's requirements seems to be the case of Thomas Soria Sr. et al. Thomas Soria Sr. was molested by his stepbrother at a young age. About 10 years later his stepbrother then went on to sexually assault, torture and murder the stepmother (i.e. Thomas Soria Sr.'s mother) who's body was found by Thomas Soria Sr. A few years later, an uncle of the stepbrother killed 3 and wounded 9 after a minor dispute in a bar. Thomas Soria Sr. has a son who he sexually assaults. He later sexual assaults his son's girlfriends, and even gets his new wife to also have sex wih the son. Eventually he demands the son (now a young adult) bring him a girl and the son promptly obeys bringing him a young girl who someone probably Sr ends up murdering, a murder they both definitely tried to cover up . ] (]) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)</small> | |||
:: |
::Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. ] (]) 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??? ] (]) 10:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::That is the uncle of the step brother. The step brother who murdered Soria Sr's mother. Some sources call him the step-uncle of Soria Sr, but I'm not sure whether they had much relationship even before the mother's murder however it's possible they did. From the surnames, I'm guessing Douglas was the brother of the stepbrother's father/Soria's stepfather. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have much relationship after the mother's murder. (But I don't really know, although already an adult, the stepfather was part of Soria Sr's life for quite a while before the murder. So it's possible Soria Sr maintained seem sort of relationship with the stepfather and/or other members of the family after the mother's murder.) Douglas himself killed 3 people but this happened after the stepbrother murdered Soria Sr's mother. The story would probably be a little easier to understand if I used the other names, but I've avoided naming people who are possibly alive even those who are murderers. Both Soria Sr and Douglas are dead, according to official sources from suicide. ] (]) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:The aircraft type was launched in 1994, this particular aircraft entered service in 2009. It may have had an older type of recorder. | |||
:::: Thanks. Wow, what a crazy family tree. Hard to keep track of all the twists and turns. ] (]) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I too am puzzled by some aspects of this crash, but I'm sure the investigators will enlighten us when they're ready. ] (]) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US . I doubt anyone else required them before. So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. .) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest . Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like . The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters "{{tqi|a former transport ministry accident investigator, said the discovery of the missing data from the budget airline's Boeing 737-800 jet's crucial final minutes was surprising and suggests all power, including backup, may have been cut, which is rare.}}" Note that the RIPS only have to work for 10 minutes, I think the timeline of this suggests power should not have been lost for 10 minutes at the 4 minutes point, but it's not something I looked in to. BTW, I think this is sort of explained in some of the other sources but if not see . Having a RIPS is a little more complicated than just having a box with a battery. There's no point recording nothing so you need to ensure that the RIPS is connected to/powering mics in the cabin. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The aircraft made 13 flights in 48 hours, meaning less than 3.7 hours per flight. Is it too much? Its last flight from Bangkok to Korea had a normal flight time for slightly more than 5 hours. Does it mean the pilots had to rush through preflight checks? ] (]) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:With this kind of schedule, it is questionable that the aircraft is well-maintained. ] (]) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The OP seems to be obsessed with creating a new conspiracy theory out of very little real information, and even less expertise. Perhaps a new hobby is in order? ] (]) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Just for info, the article is ]. This question has not yet been raised at the Talk page there. Thanks. ] (]) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Several historic dynasties were reputed to kill for political purposes or to get rid of people who annoyed them. Consider the Ceasars as described by Suetonius, sometimes having people killed for various reasons in extrajudicial killings (though maybe the emperor had absolute power). Weren't some of them in a direct descent, or through uncle/nephew/grandson relationship? Consider the ruling dynasty in North Korea. Consider the royal families of Europe in days of old. There seem to be complex genealogical links between rulers, some of whom also had convenient murders done for their benefit . ] was killed in a fake "hunting accident" which benefited his younger brother.The] were murdered long after for dynastic reasons. Was the Norman dynasty ] who had William killed an ancestor of the House of York ] who likely had the princes killed? Many kings of Scotland were murdered to aid dynastic ambitions of inbred royalty. (Not that I have any complaint against royals inbreeding, as long as they keep it in the family). There have been inns where travelers checked in but did not check out such as the famous cave at ]. The murder and piracy were family affairs and continued for decades, but there might have been replacement of one family by another. The ] involved uncles killing people and their nephews killing people many years later, so it might qualify. ] (]) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:...nor should it be, per ]. ]|] 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. ] (]) 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 == | |||
== In the middle ages, how did they enforce serfdom? == | |||
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) | |||
What stopped a serf from moving to another place? Obviously, he would be destitute, but couldn't he just go work to another feudal lord, or go to a monastery? What would prevent an exchange of serfs? If some manor needed a milkmaid and the other a strong peasant, couldn't they come to an agreement, if each of both serfs where at a place where they were not needed? --] (]) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Under English law, a ] could exchanged between lords (with both lords' consent). He would be free after living (openly) in London or a royal ] for a year and a day, but his lord could prevent this by force. A villein who went to work for a new lord could be retrieved by his previous lord in the courts, using the ] of neifty (''de nativo habendo'') against the villein's new lord. ] (]) 16:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: is the relevant section (in translation) from '']''. ] (]) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Serfs could be exchanged, but they would be included with the land to which they were attached - for example, if a lord sold a piece of his land to someone else (another lord, or the church), the sale could include the people who lived and worked there. I'm not sure if serfs were ever traded like modern athletes, actually leaving one territory for another, since they were considered to be "tied to the land". And sometimes serfdom couldn't be enforced, for example after the Black Death. See ] and the ] in England. ] (]) 11:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Did serfs even consider leaving? Didn't they stay in the same restricted area their whole lives? Wouldn't anyplace else be ''terra incognita'', strange and somewhat terrifying? ] (]) 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Right, I think this is really important, and very hard for us moderns to ]. Hard to find refs for this kind of claim though, maybe someone else can help out? ] (]) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::It's hard to find out what serfs thought about anything, since they typically didn't write things down, and the people who did write things down didn't really care to find out what the serfs thought. I don't think they were that much different from us though. You can imagine travelling to somewhere you've never been, so why couldn't they? They're still human. ] (]) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes, but humans with no real knowledge about or experience with the rest of the world and without the resources and safeguards we mostly take for granted. ] (]) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: |
:You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ ] (]) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
= January 12 = | |||
::::::Serfdom survived among Scottish miners until 1799, so not the Middle Ages, but there are interesting examples of colliery owners placing newspaper adverts regarding absconded serfs. ] '']'' 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Questions == | |||
::::::: And their children inherited that state? <small><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#C0C0C0">Contact ] ]</small> 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
# Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU? | |||
:::::::: The juridical jargon used in related cases shows that it could be made effective when deemed necessary. In various ways, it is also interesting to note how the origins of the statute lay in the necessity for the state to have the taxes properly collected . --] (]) 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
# Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries? | |||
# Why is Russia not in NATO? | |||
# If all African countries are in AU, why are all European countries not in EU? | |||
# Why Faroe Islands and Greenland have not become sovereign states yet? | |||
# Can non-sovereign states or country subdivisions have embassies? | |||
# Why French overseas departments have not become sovereign states yet? --] (]) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#:I see that ] offer a course on . Had you considered that, perhaps? ] (]) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#:# See: ] | |||
#:# Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not meet the criteria for joining the European Union | |||
#:# If you google "Nato's primary purpose", you will know. | |||
#:# The two do not have logical connection. | |||
#:# They are too small to be an independent country | |||
#:# Non-sovereign states or countries, for example Wales and Scotland, are countries within a sovereign state. They don't have embassies of their own. | |||
#:# Unlike the British territories, all people living in the French territories are fully enfranchised and can vote for the French national assembly, so they are fully represented in the French democracy and do not have the need of becoming a sovereign state. | |||
#:] (]) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#::Some of the French overseas territories are ] with a degree of autonomy from Paris, whilst ] has a special status and may be edging towards full independence. I imagine all the overseas territories contain at least some people who would prefer to be fully independent, there's a difference between sending a few representatives to the government of a larger state and having your own sovereign state (I offer no opinion on the merits/drawbacks of such an aspiration). ] (]) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Too many questions all at once… but to address the first with an overly simplistic answer: The British preferred the Pound. It had been one of the strongest currencies in the world for generations, and keeping it was a matter of national pride. ] (]) 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::1. See ] | |||
*The serf had no or almost no capital to bring with him, and the lord had no or almost no free land to give him. This is why the monasteries and ] were so important. The ] was hugely important in making ] a liberating factor to otherwise serfs who'd've starved to death prior to the plague. ] (]) 22:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::2. {{xt|"... geopolitical considerations, such as preserving Russia’s status as a former imperial power, is more important to Moscow than economic issues when it comes to foreign policy. Russia’s sees relations with the EU to be much less important than bilateral relations with the EU member-states that carry the most political weight, namely France, Germany and, to some extent, Britain. Russia thus clearly emphasizes politics over economics. While NATO enlargement was seen by Moscow to be a very important event, Russia barely noticed the enlargement of the EU on May 1."}} . See also ]. | |||
::3. See ]. | |||
::] (]) 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::(5) They're too small? Somebody tell ], ] (21 km<sup>2</sup>) and ] (26 km<sup>2</sup>) they have no business being nations. ] (]) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 26 = | |||
:::More like economically too weak. From our article on the ]: “In 2011, 13% of the Faroe Islands' national income consists of economic aid from ], corresponding to roughly 5% of GDP.” They're net recipients of taxpayer money; no way they could have built their largely underground road network themselves. The Faroe Islands have no significant agriculture, little industry or tourism. The only thing they really have is fishing rights in their huge exclusive economic zone, but an economy entirely dependent on fishing rights is vulnerable. They could try as a tax haven, but competing against the Channel Islands or Cayman Islands won't be easy. Greenland has large natural resources, including ], and developing mining would generate income, but also pollute the environment and destroy Greenlandic culture. ] (]) 10:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::First, because of religious reason, Vatican City is very unique. Second, although it is technically an independent state, according to Article 22 of the Lateran Treaty, people sentenced to imprisonment by Vatican City serve their time in prison in Italy. Third, Saint Peter's Square is actually patrolled by Italian police. Its security and defence heavily relies on Italy. Its situation is similar to Liechtenstein whose security and defence are heavily relies on Austria and Switzerland and its sentenced persons are serving their time in Austria. The key common point of these small states are they’re inland states surrounded by rich and friendly countries that they can trust. ] (]) 10:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::As for Nauru and Tuvalu, the two states located near the equator, they are quite far away from other countries that would pose a threat to their national security. The temperature, the reef islands and the atolls around them provide them with ample natural resources. However, even gifted with natural resources, these small pacific ocean islands are facing problems of low living standard, low GDP per capital and low HDI. | |||
:::Back to the case of Faroe Islands and Greenland, people of these two places enjoy a relatively higher living standard and higher HDI than previously mentioned island states because they have the edge of being able to save a lot of administrative and security costs. If one day Faroe Islands and Greenland became independent, they will face other problems of independence, including problems similar to the fishing conflicts between UK and Norway. The future could be troublesome if Faroe Islands and Greenland ever sought independence from Demark. ] (]) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Someone's bored again and expecting us to entertain them. ] (]) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== American preference for off-white versus British preference for bright pastel interior painting == | |||
::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) | |||
My observations may be totally nuts, in which case please tell me. But it seems to me that most American homes I have seen in person, and homes depicted in TV shows that I have seen, have off-white colored walls; while British shows, like '']'' and '']'' have more saturated pastel colors. Is this an accurate perception about which there exists notable commentary? Thanks. ] (]) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:No, it is not accurate. Most houses here are largely off white as well, apart from perhaps one feature wall. The colours you describe would be considered quite old fashioned. ] (]) 08:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think I agree with {{U|Fgf10}}. Bland off white schemes are certainly prevalent in rented properties, but many owner-occupiers prefer bolder colours. It's difficult to find sources that aren't based on personal opinion or sales pitches, but at least attempts to give an overview: "According to George Home, 95% of Brits ‘take risks’ with their interior design schemes, and sales of coloured emulsion paints are up 495% from last year*. These impressive figures show that Britain is certainly ready to make a big, bold statement when it comes to their interiors. This surge in colour and ‘risk taking’ shows, in my opinion, that we’re ready to have more fun with our homes. It also means that bold colour doesn’t always have to be bright — darker, moody tones are fashionable too. Interior stylist Sally Cullen suggests that this rise in popularity ‘can be attributed to a rejection of the “blank canvas” look that has been popular in recent years and a move towards a new trend of customising homes in more colourful ways that truly reflect individual tastes, lifestyles and attitudes....". Without any direct comparisons of paint sales, though, it's difficult to be objective. ] (]) 10:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Bold colours and pastel colours are quite different things in my mind. Maye this where the disagreement comes from. I assumed the OP (given the references) meant the classic lilacs and light greens etc. I still say those would be considered old fashioned, and these days you would be much more likely to see either (off) white or full on colours. ] (]) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::I shouldn't have said saturated. I simply meant boldly unwhite, such as lilac or sea-green, although I think Elizabeth & Emmet's main room is brick red, IIRC. ] (]) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Your observation of British homes is based on 2 programmes that are both quite old, both of which featured characters that are fuddy-duddy. --] (]) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I am older and fuddy-duddier than those shows, FYI. ] (]) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, fashions in interior design tend to change. Did American houses fifty years ago use saturated pastel colors? ] 15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::In the 1960s-1970s, many interiors were some combination of ], ], and ]. You can see those colors dominate . --]] 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for those pics. I recognise the yellow and orange flowered wallpaper, but can't remember whose wall in the UK I saw it on. (<small>Not sure that I want to!</small>) ] 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::That's funny, Jayron, I forgot that the house my parents bought in the early seventies had wax-dripped wallpaper painted avocado green and had orange rugs. But they were very quickly corrected to off-white. (This may also have to do with the preference for colonials in the Northeast. There was a lawsuit involved when a neighbour a few blocks away painted his house violet.) My impression of British decorating schemes was not limited to the two shows I mentioned, they were only examples. But as I said, judging a foreign country by its TV shows may simply be nuts. ] (]) 02:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
= January 13 = | |||
:::::Britain's leading paint manufacturer, ], are currently leading on their website a makeover from grey to erm, grey (sorry, "warm pewter" actually). That said, most people's houses here tend to be a bit more colourful than "off-white" unless you're trying to rent your property to somebody else, in which case, ] is almost universal. ] (]) 11:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::And a reference for the magnolia obsession is . ] (]) 16:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::And finally, if you think that we Britons are fond of bright colours, try a trip to Ireland, (also and ). ] (]) 11:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== reference behind ] == | |||
== Typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162 to 1504 == | |||
from Season 4 Episode 12 of the West Wing: | |||
What was the typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162, respectively, to 1504? What was the most common age the majority among them (combined) died at? ] (]) 19:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Misplaced Pages has articles on every monarch of both of those countries. See ] and ]. If you then click on the name of each monarch, it will take you to their biography, each of which lists the birth and death dates, where known. See, for example, the first ruler listed at the Kings of Castile, ]. If you look in the infobox on the right side, near the bottom, it lists his birth date, his death date, and the age at which he died. You can research each monarch that way, and then compile the information to answer your question. I hope that helps! --]] 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
They all begin to exit. | |||
::I was actually hoping the Misplaced Pages's reference desk could answer my question. ] (]) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
BARTLET | |||
:::If someone were to come by to do so, they would have to do exactly what you would need to do. The information is all in each article, someone just has to compile it. I suppose, someone might get bored and eventually compile it for you, but the likelihood of that happening is low, as (so far) you are the person who is most interested in the information, you are thus the most likely to be willing to put in the effort to compile it from readily available sources. Thus, it would be faster, and take less time and energy, for you to do it yourself. It's right there. The work you're avoiding doing would be what someone else would have to do anyways. Of course, this is not to prevent anyone from doing it. Someone might. If you need the information yourself, however, no one here will prevent you from doing it. --]] 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Maxine. | |||
::::And if you wait for someone else to do it, you're taking the risk that they'll do as good a job of it as you'd like them to. I'm a sloppy worker, easily bored and atrocious at maths. Would you like me to do it? --] (]) 15:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
C.J. | |||
:Eh, it took five minutes, no big deal: | |||
That's you. | |||
::Castile: | |||
::Alfonso VII 52 | |||
::Sancho III 24 | |||
::Alfonso VIII 58 | |||
::Henry I 13 | |||
::Berengaria 66 | |||
::Ferdinand III 50 | |||
::Alfonso X 62 | |||
::Sancho IV 36 | |||
::Ferdinand IV 26 | |||
::Alfonso XI 38 | |||
::Peter 34 | |||
::Henry II 45 | |||
::John I 32 | |||
::Henry III 27 | |||
::John II 49 | |||
::Henry IV 49 | |||
::Isabella I 53 | |||
JOSH | |||
::Aragon: | |||
I know. | |||
::Alfonso II 39 | |||
::Peter II 35 | |||
::James I 68 | |||
::Peter III 46 | |||
::Alfonso III 26 | |||
::James II 60 | |||
::Alfonso IV 36 | |||
::Peter IV 67 | |||
::John I 45 | |||
::Martin 53 | |||
::Ferdinand I 35 | |||
::Alfonso V 62 | |||
::John II 81 | |||
::Ferdinand II 63 | |||
Leo, C.J., and Toby leave. | |||
:So I guess the "most common age" is roughly "in their 30s" since that's when 8 of them died. ] (]) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
What is Maxine referencing here? From the context of the scene, it's probably a historical figure related to politics or the arts. I went over the list in ] but couldn't find anything I recognize. ] (]) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, that's why I'm an historian, not a mathematician :) ] (]) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (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) | |||
The ] is 49. But I'll refer you back to my earlier disclaimer. --] (]) 16:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
: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) | |||
== What number of characters becomes "too big" for a novel or TV show? == | |||
::Based on the cards I see , Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness. --] 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::More background on Maxine here: https://agefriendlyvibes.com/blogs/news/maxine-the-birth-of-the-ageist-birthday-card ] (]) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 14 = | |||
I was going to post this on the "Entertainment" Help Desk, since my question relates to TV shows and movies. But, it also relates to Literature and books, novels, etc. So I will post it here. Sometimes, a work of art (a TV show, film, novel, etc.) will have a lot of characters, and sometimes only a few characters. When there are a lot of characters (that is, "too many" characters), it is hard for the audience to keep track of things. And it is also harder for the writer to devote time/attention and character development to each character. So, are there any types of studies -- or is there any industry "standard" -- as to what constitutes a good number of characters versus having "too many" (or even "too few", I guess) characters? The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show '']'', where there were about eleven (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show '']'', which had eight kids, plus the other adult characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the eleven (or eight) characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree. Any insights? Thanks. ] (]) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Ministerial confirmation hearings == | |||
:It depends on how much of a character's background is relevant for the story. I actually thought ] did a pretty good job in less than 100 minutes depicting 12 distinct characters. - ] (]) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (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) | |||
:No individual grilling sessions, but ] the Knesset has to approve the prime minister's choices. ] ] 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Depends on how you define "main". There really was only one main character; The Henry Fonda character. The rest probably got equal screen time and contributions to the script. I haven't done a word count, but I don't know that any of the 11 jurors NOT Henry Fonda had any dominant contributions. But the film does do a good job of developing each of those 11 so they all stand as fairly distinctive. I can picture each one and his key monologue (each has one) in the film, that's the point of the film: each on had some key personal history that made them misjudge the case; as each becomes convinced to change their mind, you find out that personal history. --]] 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Insofar as one of them has to be ''the'' antagonist, I would say it was #3 (Lee J Cobb). But I agree that it wouldn't really work without (at least) #4, #5, #7, #9 and #10. See ] for the relevant article. ] (]) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:It depends. More characters may be OK, as long as they act in groups. For example, on '']'', plots frequently worked out to "the boys" against "the girls", or "the parents" against "the kids" (with Alice as a bystander or joining one of the sides). In that case, the viewer didn't need to keep all 9 characters' opinions on an issue straight. Other episodes focused on a single character or two, so again you didn't need to much worry about the rest. In a movie you can have more characters, especially if they are separated in space or time. That is, extra people from a character's childhood, like now dead grandparents, don't cause much confusion. Another example of a film series with multiple characters is '']'' and all the remakes/sequels. What really gets confusing is if they try to cast a "tall woman with curly red hair", and can't decide who to hire for the role, so hire a dozen of them, and create roles for each. (If you're going to have lots of characters, at least make sure they don't all look alike.) ] (]) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Is an occupied regime a country? == | |||
: Various 19th-century (and later) epic novels recognise the issue of "too many characters for the reader to keep track of", by including a sort of "who's who" list at the front, showing their connections one to another. ''War and Peace'' is the perfect example. It's been a long time since I tried, and failed, to read ''Les Misérables'', but I think a remember the same list there. And anything involving the Roman Empire. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 21:43, 26 January 2016 (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) | |||
::If you mean non-fiction (or maybe "inspired by real life"), then yes, real life has too many characters to keep track of in a work of fiction. Sometimes this is handled by combining the features of similar people into one. Even when going from a book to a movie, this step is sometimes needed to simplify things. For example, the ] film combined the good witches of the North and South. (They didn't combine the wicked witches of the East and West, but since one was killed right off, there was no need to get to know her.) ] (]) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Are you talking about a ]? ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:No hard numbers, but here is a guide to deciding if a work may have too many characters, based on primary/secondary status, how important they are, etc. You could apply this scheme to some of the examples here and see if they pass this "test". Here is someone else's opinion on how to assess if a work has too many (or too few) characters . Here's TVtropes' on "Loads and Loads of Characters" . ] (]) 22:21, 26 January 2016 (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.) ] ] 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) | |||
:Instead of trying to draft an abstract, do you have a concrete example you're thinking of? --] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:One should always maintain a distinguish between countries and the regimes administering them. Syria was not the Assad regime – Assad is gone but Syria remains. Likewise, Russia is not the Putin regime. Identifying the two can only lead to confusion. | |||
:What makes a geographic region (or collection of regions) a country – more precisely, a ]? There are countless ]s, several of which are sovereignty disputes; for example, the regimes of ] and ] claim each other's territory and deny each other's sovereignty over the territory the other effectively administers. Each has its own list of supporters of their claims. Likewise, the ] and ] claim each other's territory. By the definition of '']'', there is no agreement in such cases on the validity of such claims. The answer to the question whether the contested region in a sovereignty dispute is a country depends on which side of the dispute one chooses, which has more to do with ] than with any objectively applicable criteria. --] 10:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: |
::At least in part, it depends on other countries agreeing that a particular area is actually a nation and that the government that claims to represnt it has some legitimacy; see our ] article. For many nations, recognition would depend on whether the ] had been adhered to. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
One of the peculiarities of the Cold War is the emergence of competing governments in multiple countries, along a more or less similar pattern. We had West and East Germany, South and North Vietnam, South and North Korea and ROC and PRC. The only thing that separates the Chinese case from the onset is that there was no usage of the terms West China (for PRC) and East China (for ROC), since the ROC control was limited to a single province (and a few minor islands). Over time the ROC lost most of its diplomatic recognition, and the notion that the government in Taipei represented all of China (including claims on Mongolia etc) became anachronistic. Gradually over decades, in the West it became increasingly common to think of Taiwan as a separate country as it looked separate from mainland China on maps and whatnot. Somewhat later within Taiwan itself political movements wanted (in varying degrees) to abandon the ROC and declare the island as a sovereign state of its own grew. Taiwanese nationalism is essentially a sort of separatism from the ROC ruling Taiwan. | |||
In all of the Cold War divided countries, there have been processes were the political separation eventually becomes a cultural and social separation as well. At the onset everyone agrees that the separation is only a political-institutional technicality, but over time societies diverge. Even 35 years after the end of the GDR, East Germans still feel East German. In Korea and China there is linguistic divergence, as spelling reforms and orthography have developed differently under different political regimes. --] (]) 10:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: |
:The difference with Taiwan vs. the other Cold War governments is that pre-ROC Taiwan was under Japanese rule. Whereas other governments split existing countries, Taiwan was arguably a separate entity already. ] (]) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
: |
: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) | ||
::The OPs number's seem off but still there are IMO limits. As I understand it, ] (the TV series) has fewer characters than ] (the book series), some are combined or missing entirely. One of the reasons is surely due to the shorter format. (Other factors like not wanting that many actors would also be at play.) However there have definitely been more than 11 with somewhat significant roles. And given that the TV series is still as willing to kill of characters as in the books there will be more. A TV series can definitely fit significantly more than a movie partly why movies from books tend to have even more drastic cuts. ] (]) 13:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Photos in a novel == | |||
::: {{re|Nil Einne}} I am the OP. Your comment got me confused. What numbers are "off", in my posting? Thanks. ] (]) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
::::As far as I can tell, you only gave one set of numbers. | |||
::::{{quote|The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show Head of the Class, where there were about ''eleven'' (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show Eight Is Enough, which had ''eight kids, plus the other adult'' characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the ''eleven (or eight)'' characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree.}} | |||
::::As I me and several others have mentioned, the idea you can't develop eight or eleven characters to a satisfactory degree or is too many doesn't seem to be supported by many TV shows where this does happen and is fine with the audience. So whatever the limit is, it isn't eight or eleven for a TV series. Admitedly Head of the Class is a 22-24 mins show which makes things more difficult so perhaps 11 was really starting to get to be too many. But it lasted 5 seasons and you didn't really mention short TV shows vs long ones. | |||
::::] (]) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (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) | |||
::::: Yes, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant that my number of eleven incorrectly described ''Head of the Class'' and that my number of eight incorrectly described ''Eight Is Enough''. That is why I got confused. You were saying that my "estimate" of 8 or 11 is "off" as the cut-off point for what might be considered "too many". ] (]) 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
If anyone's interested, the novel is '']'' by ]. -- ] </sup></span>]] 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:There's a satire of the sitcom phenomena called '']''. Not a "real" family show, but does a good job of mirroring them. Aside from the gory part, anyway. ] ] 00:14, ], ] (UTC) | |||
::<small> Ok, that's a real stretch. But due to the shred of relevancy and the importance of the work in question, I'll let it stand :) </small>] (]) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:IIRC ''Loving Monsters'' by James Hamilton-Patterson has some photos in it. ] (]) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: <small> For my money, too many cooks these days garnish their dishes with finely-shredded irrelevancy. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) </small> | |||
: |
:'']'' 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) | |||
::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) | |||
*I've read plenty of books with a list of '']'' where the list really wasn't needed. ] did this with many of his books, such as ''''']''''', where it certainly wasn't needed. Tolkien did ''not'' do this with ''''']''''', although he had his indices. Merry and Pippin are indistibuishable, except that one swears fealty to Theoden of Rohan, the other Denethor of Gondor. My mother has long complained that she has tried to read '']'' but that the characters all have ]! The needs of the story should be the driving factor, and the clarity of characterization depends on the author's skill. ] (]) 19:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::]s, you mean? ] ] 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) | |||
Thanks, all. ] (]) 19:51, 28 January 2016 (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 |
= January 15 = | ||
== Refusing royal assent == | |||
== "Billers" - what does this mean (in given context)? == | |||
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. | |||
] <small>(the link is atm a redirect to ], but not explained in the article - see also ])</small> is an international . On their website, they provide a of their <small>(propably only US)</small> "billers", including information whether 'billing' will occur the "Same day", the "Next day" or "2-3 day". Well, I do know what a bill is and thus can imagine what a biller is. But given the nature of epay, I fail to understand what those "billers" are. Merchants accepting payment via epay? But then, as mentioned, epay is not a specific payment method, but a retailer of varying payment products. Do those "billers" accept at least one of those epay prepaid products? All of them? Or does it mean something else? --] (]) 08:49, 27 January 2016 (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) | |||
== Questions on Sources == | |||
: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) | |||
I have a couple of questions: | |||
: 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: | |||
*Where can I find the English translation of the South Korean report on the ]? | |||
:* (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. | |||
*What is the best overall source on ]? I need to read up on it. | |||
: 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) | |||
Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Fratelli Gianfranchi == | |||
:For the ], I believe there was a US Congressional investigation, so you might look for that report. ] (]) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::In the footnotes to the article that StuRat has linked above, I found . The full reports of this type of investigation tend to be truly immense documents. No luck with the South Korean report though. According to our article (in the references section), the English language title was ''"The Report of the Findings on the No Gun Ri Incident"'' but a Google search using that has drawn a blank. ] (]) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you both very much! ]<sup>]</sup> 03:37, 29 January 2016 (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. | |||
= January 28 = | |||
{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 15:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:"Fratelli Gianfranchi" would be translated as "Gianfranchi Brothers" with Gianfranchi being the surname. Looking at Google Books there seems to have existed a sculptor called Battista Gianfranchi from Carrara but I'm not finding much else. --] (]) 06:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The city of ] is famous for its ] which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. ] (]) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. ] (]) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::In the light of the above, the mentions in the article of "the Italian sculptor Fratelli Gianfranchi" should perhaps be modified (maybe ". . . sculptors Fratelli Gianfranchi (Gianfranchi Brothers)"), but our actual sources are thin and this would border on ]. | |||
::::FWIW, the Brothers (or firm) do not have an entry in the Italian Misplaced Pages, but I would have expected there to be Italian-published material about them, perhaps findable in a library or museum in Carrara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I have added the translation for Fratelli Gianfranchi as a footnote. I agree that more information might be available in Carrara. ] (]) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 16 = | |||
== Influence of the Yom Kippur War on the US military == | |||
== 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. | |||
I've been reading Rabinovich's book on the Yom Kippur war and the constant references to tanks fighting other tanks in the deserts of the middle east got me thinking how much that war influenced US military thinking prior to the Gulf War. Are there any sources which would possibly answer this question. I'm thinking in terms of armour and air force doctrine, logistics and so on. Did the US have observers during the Yom Kippur War? | |||
] (]) 02:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
:Try and , and also . Probably the most pertinent is but you'll have to track down a copy to read it. ] (]) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:We don't answer questions like that here. You should engage a lawyer. --] 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Chapter 15 bankruptcy does cover individuals and does include processes for people who are foreign citizens. ] (]) 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 17 = | |||
== What is this symbol? TTC == | |||
== Raymond Smullyan and Ayn Rand == | |||
This site from TTC shows the info of the streetcar route 501 Queen. Next to the name it says 10 with some green background. Does anybody know what it is? http://www.ttc.ca/Routes/501/Eastbound.jsp ] (]) 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Donmust90] (]) 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:It means "The route is part of the 10 Minute Network, and operates 10 minutes or better, all day, every day." See the Route Description tab. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 04:58, 28 January 2016 (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) | |||
== ] and the ] == | |||
:I guess not. Smullyan wrote so much that it is difficult to assert with certainty that he never did, but it has been pointed out by others that his ] philosophical stance is incompatible with Rand's Objectivism.<sup></sup> --] 12:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
= January 18 = | |||
What major event during the 1996 Summer Olympics is being referenced here? Googling "1996 Summer Olympics Patriot movement" got me nothing useful. ] (]) 09:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Presumably ]. ] (]) 09:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks.] (]) 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
== "The Narrow Way" issued to prisoners in 1916 == | |||
== ] == | |||
In his book '''', about prison life in England in 1916, the Quaker Hubert Peet says: | |||
This Times article talks about a poisonous chemical, ], and mentions a dilemma: "...police pondered how to stop the sale of a drug that was not illegal..." | |||
: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. | |||
Wouldn't that the fact that ] is poisonous, i.e. it causes Parkinson's, make it illegal in this particular context (feeding it to people)? ] (]) 09:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: That wouldn't be enough to stop people selling it? Eating fertiliser would probably make you ill too, but that wouldn't be enough to stop people selling it. --] (]) 11:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I did mention "in this particular context (feeding it to people)". Selling fertiliser as fertiliser obviously isn't illegal, but selling fertiliser to unsuspecting buyers by pretending it's suitable for human consumption is definitely illegal.] (]) 12:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: Nevertheless, it is not necessarily a crime to sell something just because it could harm you. Sausages apparently give you cancer. Most places have a requirement to label known poisons, and it may well be a crime to sell a known poison without the warning label. But that is usually based on a list and wouldn't apply if something is not classified as a poison by the law, which may well be the case here because it seems to be a recently synthesised chemical the properties of which were not well known. --] (]) 17:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
What was this book ''The Narrow Way''? | |||
== When did Arkansaw Territory become Arkansas Territory? == | |||
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've been unable in a short search to find out when "Arkansaw" gave way to "Arkansas". The territory was organized as Arkansaw: "... and be called the Arkansaw territory" | |||
: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) | |||
But when it was admitted the law read "the Territory of Arkansas". | |||
: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) | |||
Was there a formal, legal name change at some point, or was it simply the newer law reflecting overwhelming usage? --] (]) 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::You can for £5.99. ] (]) 15:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:See ]. --]] 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{small|Fun fact: a copy of ''The Narrow Way'' figures in ]'s novel '']''. ] (]) 22:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
::Jayron's link is to the official naming of the state in 1881, after admission to the Union. See also ] and document linked from it - the first official use of "Arkansas" rather than "Arkansaw" was in an Act of the US Congress dated April 21, 1820. ] (]) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks! --] (]) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
= January 19 = | |||
<small>Please don’t mind about this question…</small> | |||
== Federal death penalty == | |||
I was watching CNN, they were discussing about ''virgin scholarship'' in South Africa for woman. | |||
Is there a list of federal criminal cases where the federal government sought the death penalty but the jury sentenced the defendant to life in prison instead? I know ]'s case is one, but I'm unsure of any others. ] | ] 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* If you <s>were</s> use a condom and have safe sex, even on the first time, whether it was a love, prostitute or fun type one time try out sex, do you lose your virginity? | |||
] (]) 19:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Official portraits of Donald Trump's first presidency == | |||
::<small>]: Sorry D. -- ] (]) 06:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) </small> | |||
:*] is a social construct, which has it's own definitions in each culture. There is no universal, agreed-upon definition. You're allowed to read the Misplaced Pages article to learn more about it, however. --]] 19:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{multiple image | |||
{{cot|Answer is intentionally crude & NSFW although for an IMO good reason. Read at your own risk. ] (]) 23:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)}} | |||
| image1 = 20170607-OSEC-PJK-0061 (34770550600).jpg | |||
:In terms of the specific scholarship , it seems to require regular ]ing, most likely checking for for a visible fairly intact ]. (Our article mentions traditions among some South African tribes.) That means even if the woman has never even seen another man (or woman for that matter) naked that she remembers, never masturbated, never kissed or done anything remotely sexual; if she was born without a hymen (or it was barely visible), or it significantly teared during ], or because she used a ] or whatever else, she probably isn't going to be considered a virgin by the test. Meanwhile a woman who has had ] of the mouth and anus many times would potentially be a virgin according to the test (if her hymen is still fairly visible and undamaged). Whether they will also take on board any rumours or whatever I don't know. Since they the sort of people to came up with the scholarship idea I guess they might. There's a Facebook page to keep them company. P.S. Anyone who isn't forbidden from editing the RD or[REDACTED] in general, is free to remove this answer. If it's removed under such a provision, it should not be added back with my signature. ] (]) 00:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| alt1 = Yellow cartouche | |||
{{cob}} | |||
| 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 . --] 12:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I was particularly concerned about this ] article but the Adam and Eve information been taken off... -- ] (]) 06:19, 29 January 2016 (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) | |||
:Of course, virginity is a social construct and it can be defined narrowly or broadly. However, in my opinion, by far the most common definition of a virgin, at least for heterosexuals, is a person who has never engaged in penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse. Engaging or not engaging in other sexual acts and presence or absence of a hymen are secondary to this core definition. ] ] 06:35, 29 January 2016 (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. | |||
::<small>{{=2|facepalm}} -- ] (]) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::Strictly speaking, it does not belong in ], as Trump was not yet president. However, ] features nothing but lugubrious portraits of the president-reelect. --] 22:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 20 = | |||
== Iranian's world demolition evolution == | |||
== Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin == | |||
# What are they doing for the world/their country since they are being one of the world's oil and gas producer? | |||
# Do countries have any sort of legislation indicting contribution to climate changing issue will cost __________ from profit earnings...? <small>For any countries to be honest - I'm actually expecting carbon reducing machines being implement as a result.</small> | |||
] (]) 19:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:On the second point, see ] and ]. Iran has ratified the Protocol, but without having set a target for emission reduction. ] (]) 20:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: (ec) For the second question, see ]. --] (]) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I'll read through guys, thanks. -- ] (]) 06:21, 29 January 2016 (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) | |||
= January 29 = | |||
: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}}. --] 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 ). --] 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Pu Yi == | |||
== Presidential pardon power in the USA == | |||
<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">— 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. --] 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 = | |||
My understanding is that the presidential pardon power in the USA is absolute and cannot be reviewed (or overturned) by any other branch of government. So, are there no restrictions whatsoever on the president? Can a president pardon himself? (It is understood that the presidential pardon power can only be extended to federal crimes, not state crimes.) Thanks. ] (]) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== text of executive order == | |||
: ''(Edit conflict)'' I have read ] and ]. Thanks. ] (]) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (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. | |||
:] seems to comprehensively answer your question, excepting the trivial "can a president pardon himself". The answer to that is "it is literally and totally impossible to answer one way or the other." Since it has never happened, it hasn't been tested in the courts, and thus there is no ] to provide any guidance, as the matter is not explicitly dealt with by statutory or constitutional law (in this case ]). --]] 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Well, it says "except in cases of impeachment", so certainly he/she can't do it once impeachment proceedings have been started. I would assume it also means that if she pardoned herself, it wouldn't stop her from being impeached, even after the pardon, for that offense. --] (]) 07:13, 29 January 2016 (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. | |||
:::: Excellent point, about the impeachments. ] (]) 10:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
1. Is the full text of this executive order available to the general public? | |||
:::Theoretically, she could wipe out the House of Representatives. ] ] 08:57, ], ] (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." | |||
:::: Huh? How so? ] (]) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
:::::I guess if they were ] although the legality of that AFAIK has never been tested. I also suspect it's a violation of international law. And I think it's unlikely it would survive legal challenge if it happens in the US. However we're only talking about the legal side here. You still need to convince someone to do it. For all the criticism of the US military, I'm not convinced it will be easy to find someone to bomb the HoR. (Whether knowingly or by tricking them.) Heck even if they all did happen to be overseas for some reason. While it's possible some low level person wouldn't challenge the order or even realise what they're doing, it won't necessarily be easy to convince them to take an order directly from the president even if they are commander in chief. Note if you don't care about legalities, theoretically anyone can do it. The question remains, are they really capable? ] (]) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (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) | |||
:Can you pardon someone before he was convicted? Can a president be judged as he's still in office? Otherwise, the case might never arise. A criminal president would be impeached (=> no longer president), judged, and convicted.--] (]) 15:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::See ]. Ford absolutely pardoned Nixon before Nixon was tried or convicted in a court of law. Commentators at the time suggested Nixon selected Ford as his successor with expectation that Ford would pardon him (but without discussion of this or it being a quid pro quo). From the article, "Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward." Many Americans had hoped to see Nixon tried in court for his crimes, which had resulted in several of his assistants being convicted.A pardon after a trial and conviction would have been less objectionable. A preemptive pardon can serve as a coverup, so that all the discovery and interrogation of a rtial are avoided. Ford then lost the presidential election. (Payback). ] (]) 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Deadline for ratification of amendments to the US constitution == | |||
::: You are correct to say that ''Ford absolutely pardoned Nixon before Nixon was tried or convicted in a court of law''. But -- even further than that -- Nixon was not even (yet) ''charged'' or brought up on any crimes. So, the Nixon case also allows a pardon in a case where there is not even a criminal charge filed against the pardoned person. Of course, it would only have been a matter of time before prosecutors did file some criminal charge against Nixon. But, as of the time of the pardon, they had not yet done so. So, technically, there was not even any crime to "pardon". But, we all know how politics goes. ] (]) 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:::: On September 8, 1974, Ford issued ], which gave Nixon a full and unconditional ] for any crimes he '''''might have committed''''' against the United States while President. We have no Misplaced Pages article on the Nixon pardon? Really? ] (]) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (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. | |||
==Can a court strike down a child support insurance contract on public policy grounds?== | |||
I have previously thought about this scenario: | |||
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. | |||
If some doctor will surgically remove both my entire vas deferens and my entire epididymis (after all, regular vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and vasectomy failure certainly isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support) and I will find and purchase some insurance which is going to pay all of my child support for me in the event of an unplanned pregnancy (the risk of which should be extremely small in this scenario), then can some court strike down this insurance contract of mine on public policy grounds (such as by having this court argue that having my insurance company pay my child support for me could be emotionally traumatic to this child later on)? | |||
Completely serious question, for the record. After all, I have previously heard about how some people have argued that courts shouldn't award childcare costs to people whose sterilizations had failed due to medical negligence due to the fact that this could be emotionally traumatic to this child later on. ] (]) 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: I don't understand your premise. Why would having an insurance company pay someone's child support for them be emotionally traumatic to a child later on? ] (]) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Because the child can be upset about the fact that his or her father didn't want him or her and/or about the fact that his or her father wasn't even willing to spend (much) of his own money in taking care of him or her. ] (]) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: Little kids do not understand money, finances, expenses, bills, how they are paid, etc. They have no concept about that. And they could care less. ] (]) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::That's certainly *not* going to remain true in the long(er)-run, though. ] (]) 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Under your theory, a court would strike down forcing a father to pay child support. Because the kid might be traumatized by the fact that the father did not want to pay for the kid's expenses and only did so because a judge forced him to. ] (]) 07:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Actually, No; after all, in the eyes of a judge, having a judge force an unwilling father to pay child support is certainly better than having an unwilling father simply not pay any child support at all. After all, if a child can be emotionally traumatized either way, then this child might as well at least get the child support that he or she deserves and is legally entitled to. ] (]) 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::But how will that fit in with your scenario? Having a court strike down such an insurance contract would be worse that the judge ordering the father to pay because in that case the father may not pay or require a lot of pressure etc which the child could learn about. If the insurance pays, well the child can always find out about the insurance in any case so they are always going to know the father didn't want kids at one stage. But they can at least be reassured that despite this, the father was possibly at least responsible and perhaps even caring enough (or possibly more "selfish" motivations) to set up the insurance contract rather than risk the child having no support if the father simply couldn't pay (or didn't pay) because he never planned, expected or wanted that responsibility. Even if the father happily paid when ordered to, there's no guarantee the child is going to see this better than the insurance which the father set up paying, and the court has no way of knowing how the father would handle it anyway. The only way the court could be confident it would be better is if the father voluntarily rejects the contract and pays, not if a court orders it. Note however if you need legal advice about insurance contracts (rather than discussion about the possible emotional effects on the child) you should contact a lawyer. ] (]) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Kangaroo bomber == | |||
, Sevdet Besim "faces charges relating to searching internet sites" for terrorism-related activities, and he "allegedly conducted internet searches on Anzac Day in preparation for a terrorist attack". Does Victorian law specifically address Internet searches, or are prosecutors merely mentioning it as another piece of evidence in favo(u)r of their argument that Besim was intending to commit terrorism? ] (]) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:The crime is intentionally in preparation for a terrorist act. In ]'s case, he was convicted for Seems anything done towards terrorism is its own offense, even if the kangaroo never explodes. Same goes for ]. As long as prosecutors can tie it together as a plan, the outcome is irrelevant. ] ] 05:43, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== Floor scraping == | |||
{{multiple image|caption_align=center | |||
| align = right | |||
| total_width = 400<!--image 1--> | |||
| image1 = Gustave Caillebotte - The Floor Planers - Google Art Project.jpg | |||
| width1 = 5224 | |||
| height1 = 3670 | |||
| image2 = Gustave Caillebotte-Floor-scrapers (1876).jpg | |||
| width2 = 1648 | |||
| height2 = 1326 | |||
| footer_background = | |||
| footer = Two angles on '']'' | |||
}} | |||
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. | |||
'']'' is a milestone in art... but are its subjects actually doing? They seem to be peeling away the varnish presumably to re-paint it, but why are they working in thin strips along the edge of each board? ] 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Because when working with wood, you want to work with the ], when you work perpendicular to the grain you are more likely to damage the surface. The fibers in the wood run parallel to each other. You would want to scrape ''in the same direction'' as those fibers so you don't catch those fibers and damage the wood. Boards are cut parallel to the grain as well. If you scrape or sand or plane wood perpendicular to the grain, you'll disrupt those fibers and damage the surface. --]] 13:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::But why in those alternating tiger stripes though? ] 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::The goal would be to remove the old varnish and as slight as possible a depth of wood so the floor will be uniform, flat and smoth to accept the new varnish. If they used a scraper with a slightly convex surface, it would take out a shallow trough and leave tiger stripes, but this makes little sense. The scene makes more sense if the boards were all cupped, with the edges higher than the centers. Then scraping the high edges with a flat scraper on the initial pass would produce the depicted scene. Subsequent passes would achieve the flat planar surface desired. When I have had similar floors refinished, the contractors used power belt sanders with very course sandpaper initially, followed by finer paper. But at the end of the boards, where they met the wall, and in confined spaces too small fr the machine, they still used scrapers as in the painting/ The puzzle here is that in the painting, the boards which have not yet been scraped look quite flat. My contractor filled in the gaps between the boards with wood filler after the initial sanding, which produced a similar tiger stripe effect before he sanded it flat, but zooming into the painting shows no sign of such wood filler. ] (]) 18:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
''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 ISIS have a corresponding religious identity? == | |||
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'm no expert, but it seems like most (I don't know if it's all) of the branches of Islam are based on belief/disbelief in the Caliphate of specific individuals. Not just Shia and Sunni, but ] and ] Muslims, for example, are defined by their belief in some particular Caliph. So is there a sect name like "Baghdadi" or something, indicating Muslims who believe that the ISIS leader is a religious authority? For that matter, is there a sect that is defined by belief in the Ottomans as Caliphs? | |||
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) | |||
Probably I shouldn't even pose the scenario, but just to sort of illustrate the relevance, I could picture that an old woman in a Western country might decide she can't participate in any actual ISIS ''activities'', but maintain that she believes al-Baghdadi is Caliph in a ''religious'' way, and demand respect for her freedom of religion as she posts admiring comments in a country that has otherwise infringed freedom of speech in this regard. (I don't know if such a scenario has occurred) ] (]) 15:02, 29 January 2016 (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. ←] <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> | |||
:Source amnesia, but I do remember reading and seeing interviews a few years ago with a couple of folks who consider themselves to be fighting for Daesh on ideological grounds. Their relationship with the UK and US gov'ts was akin to two kids holding their fingers an inch away from each other's face while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..." in hopes that the other one would shove first. ] (]) 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::The courts in general views these things as ]s. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 21:59, 21 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) | |||
= January 22 = | |||
:I don't think it really is a religious organization, but rather a criminal organization that finds it convenient to claim religious affiliation for recruiting purposes. I am reminded of the ] and their supposed Catholic beliefs, which they feel free to ignore whenever those beliefs might interfere with "business". Similarly, ISIS claims to believe whatever is most convenient at the time. In particular, how they treat non-Muslims and those of other sects of Islam has been all over the map (from leaving them alone in exchange for a tax, right up to genocide). ] (]) 18:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:<small>:Sounds more like a country/city type organisation in the name of the religion. | |||
:I don't think "any" religious authority figure would create such devastation around the world until/unless their religion is under scrutiny. There just a manipulated bunch who 1) understand the Quran the wrong way, 2) are bothered of the evolution of the world, can't take it, so creating problems. 3) I think I recall from BBC that the original network started before 1930... | |||
:The "Allah" that they are dying for, its the same Allah that forbidden suicidal acts. (Lol) | |||
:] (]) 19:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)</small> |
Latest revision as of 03:12, 22 January 2025
Welcome to the humanities sectionof the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
January 8
The Nest magazine, UK, 1920s
I have a copy of The Grocer's Window Book. London: The Nest Magazine. 1922., "arranged by The Editor of The Nest". The address of The Nest Magazine is given as 15 Arthur Street, London, EC4. It contains suggestions for arranging window displays in an attractive manner to attract customers into independent grocer's shops. I would be interested to know more about The Nest. I suspect it may have something to do with Nestles Milk, as 1) the back cover is a full-page advertisement for Nestles and Ideal Milk, and there are several other adverts for Nestles products in the book, and 2) one of the suggested window displays involves spelling out "IDEAL" with tins of Ideal Milk. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Nest, 1922. M.—1st. 6d. Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co., 15 Arthur Street, E.c.4
according to Willing's press guide and advertisers directory and handbook. I also found it in The Newspaper press directory and advertisers' guide, which merely confirms the address and the price of sixpence. Both of these were for the year 1922, which suggests to me that the magazine might not have survived into 1923. M signifies monthly, and 1st probably means published on the 1st of the month. Card Zero (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Historical U.S. population data by age (year 1968)
In the year 1968, what percentage of the United States population was under 25 years old? I am wondering about this because I am watching the movie Wild in the Streets, and want to know if a percentage claimed in the film was pulled out of a hat or was based in fact. 2601:18A:C500:E830:CE4:140C:29E5:594F (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What percentage did they give? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 52% (it's on the movie poster). Card Zero (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tabel No. 6 in the 1971 US Census Report (p. 8) gives, for 1960, 80093 Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of 180007 Kpeople, corresponding to 44.5%, and, for 1970, 94095 Kpeople age 0–24 on a total population of 204265 Kpeople, corresponding to 46.1%. Interpolation results in an estimate of 45.8% for 1968. --Lambiam 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who are Kpeople? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or 1 kiloperson. — Kpalion 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, Kpeople means 1 thousandpeople. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reverse engineering and a spot of maths: k = kilo = 1 000 = 1 thousand. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who are Kpeople? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Countries with greatest land mass
Can someone please fill in these blanks? Thank you.
1. Currently, the USA ranks as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass.
2. If the USA were to "annex" or "acquire" both Canada and Greenland, the USA would rank as number _____ among countries with the greatest land mass.
Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- See List of countries and dependencies by area, which gives a nuanced answer to your first question, and the answer to your second question is obvious from the data in the article.-Gadfium (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 4 and 1. But the chance of Trump to annex Canada is close to zero. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also the US somehow annexing Greenland is infinitely improbable. It's part of the European Union. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trump's presidential term is four years and the process of discussion would take longer than that. Stanleykswong (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it isn't. —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it is effectively: Greenland and the European Union says "all citizens of the Realm of Denmark residing in Greenland (Greenlandic nationals) are EU citizens". Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But Denmark is a NATO member. The US invading Greenland will trigger NATO Article 5. --Lambiam 11:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, US is a member of NATO. The situation will be very complicated. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But Denmark is a NATO member. The US invading Greenland will trigger NATO Article 5. --Lambiam 11:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also the US somehow annexing Greenland is infinitely improbable. It's part of the European Union. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't attribute any significance to the Orange Lunatic's weird brain processes. He makes outlandish statements all the time, for one and only one reason: to get attention. And most people fall for it, expertly led by the world's media. He has the same self-involved strategy that any pre-vocal child has: anything's fair game as long as I get the attention I crave. This is completely normal in small children. In presidents of the United States of America, not so much. -- Jack of Oz 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trump is, if nothing else, a master at manipulating the media. He can talk all he wants, but until he does something, it's just talk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All politicians are actors and good actors do what the role requires them to do whether they like it or not. What we need to do is see what they did, not what they preached. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trump is, if nothing else, a master at manipulating the media. He can talk all he wants, but until he does something, it's just talk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
January 11
JeJu AirFlight 2216
Is this the beginning of a new conspiracy theory? On 11 January, the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board stated that both the CVR and FDR had stopped recording four minutes before the aircraft crashed.
Why would the flight recorder stop recording after the bird strike? Don't they have backup battery for flight recorders? Ohanian (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? Stanleykswong (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. Ohanian (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It says on[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)
- Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US . I doubt anyone else required them before. So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. .) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest . Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like . The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters "
- The aircraft made 13 flights in 48 hours, meaning less than 3.7 hours per flight. Is it too much? Its last flight from Bangkok to Korea had a normal flight time for slightly more than 5 hours. Does it mean the pilots had to rush through preflight checks? Stanleykswong (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- With this kind of schedule, it is questionable that the aircraft is well-maintained. Stanleykswong (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The OP seems to be obsessed with creating a new conspiracy theory out of very little real information, and even less expertise. Perhaps a new hobby is in order? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Just for info, the article is Jeju Air Flight 2216. This question has not yet been raised at the Talk page there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...nor should it be, per WP:TALK. Shantavira| 10:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in Reliable sources, not OR speculated about by/in the Misplaced Pages article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there are Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Quite. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have now posed the question there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in Reliable sources, not OR speculated about by/in the Misplaced Pages article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there are Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Fortune 500
Is there any site where one can view complete Fortune 500 and Fortune Global 500 for free? These indices are so widely used so is there such a site? --40bus (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ Stanleykswong (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
January 12
Questions
- Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU?
- Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries?
- Why is Russia not in NATO?
- If all African countries are in AU, why are all European countries not in EU?
- Why Faroe Islands and Greenland have not become sovereign states yet?
- Can non-sovereign states or country subdivisions have embassies?
- Why French overseas departments have not become sovereign states yet? --40bus (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see that UCL offer a course on Modern European History & Politics. Had you considered that, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- See: United Kingdom and the euro
- Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not meet the criteria for joining the European Union
- If you google "Nato's primary purpose", you will know.
- The two do not have logical connection.
- They are too small to be an independent country
- Non-sovereign states or countries, for example Wales and Scotland, are countries within a sovereign state. They don't have embassies of their own.
- Unlike the British territories, all people living in the French territories are fully enfranchised and can vote for the French national assembly, so they are fully represented in the French democracy and do not have the need of becoming a sovereign state.
- Stanleykswong (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some of the French overseas territories are Overseas collectivities with a degree of autonomy from Paris, whilst New Caledonia has a special status and may be edging towards full independence. I imagine all the overseas territories contain at least some people who would prefer to be fully independent, there's a difference between sending a few representatives to the government of a larger state and having your own sovereign state (I offer no opinion on the merits/drawbacks of such an aspiration). Chuntuk (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see that UCL offer a course on Modern European History & Politics. Had you considered that, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too many questions all at once… but to address the first with an overly simplistic answer: The British preferred the Pound. It had been one of the strongest currencies in the world for generations, and keeping it was a matter of national pride. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. See United Kingdom and the euro
- 2. "... geopolitical considerations, such as preserving Russia’s status as a former imperial power, is more important to Moscow than economic issues when it comes to foreign policy. Russia’s sees relations with the EU to be much less important than bilateral relations with the EU member-states that carry the most political weight, namely France, Germany and, to some extent, Britain. Russia thus clearly emphasizes politics over economics. While NATO enlargement was seen by Moscow to be a very important event, Russia barely noticed the enlargement of the EU on May 1." Russia and the European Union (May 2004). See also Russia–European Union relations.
- 3. See Russia–NATO relations.
- Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- (5) They're too small? Somebody tell Vatican City, Nauru (21 km) and Tuvalu (26 km) they have no business being nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- More like economically too weak. From our article on the Faroe Islands: “In 2011, 13% of the Faroe Islands' national income consists of economic aid from Denmark, corresponding to roughly 5% of GDP.” They're net recipients of taxpayer money; no way they could have built their largely underground road network themselves. The Faroe Islands have no significant agriculture, little industry or tourism. The only thing they really have is fishing rights in their huge exclusive economic zone, but an economy entirely dependent on fishing rights is vulnerable. They could try as a tax haven, but competing against the Channel Islands or Cayman Islands won't be easy. Greenland has large natural resources, including rare earth metals, and developing mining would generate income, but also pollute the environment and destroy Greenlandic culture. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, because of religious reason, Vatican City is very unique. Second, although it is technically an independent state, according to Article 22 of the Lateran Treaty, people sentenced to imprisonment by Vatican City serve their time in prison in Italy. Third, Saint Peter's Square is actually patrolled by Italian police. Its security and defence heavily relies on Italy. Its situation is similar to Liechtenstein whose security and defence are heavily relies on Austria and Switzerland and its sentenced persons are serving their time in Austria. The key common point of these small states are they’re inland states surrounded by rich and friendly countries that they can trust. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As for Nauru and Tuvalu, the two states located near the equator, they are quite far away from other countries that would pose a threat to their national security. The temperature, the reef islands and the atolls around them provide them with ample natural resources. However, even gifted with natural resources, these small pacific ocean islands are facing problems of low living standard, low GDP per capital and low HDI.
- Back to the case of Faroe Islands and Greenland, people of these two places enjoy a relatively higher living standard and higher HDI than previously mentioned island states because they have the edge of being able to save a lot of administrative and security costs. If one day Faroe Islands and Greenland became independent, they will face other problems of independence, including problems similar to the fishing conflicts between UK and Norway. The future could be troublesome if Faroe Islands and Greenland ever sought independence from Demark. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (5) They're too small? Somebody tell Vatican City, Nauru (21 km) and Tuvalu (26 km) they have no business being nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone's bored again and expecting us to entertain them. Nanonic (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 40bus often asks mass questions like this on the Language Ref. Desk. Now you get to enjoy him on the Humanities Ref. Desk. The answers to 2, 3, and 4 are somewhat the same -- the African Union is basically symbolic, while the EU and NATO are highly-substantive, and don't admit nations for reasons of geographic symmetry only. AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
January 13
reference behind Maxine_(given_name)
from Season 4 Episode 12 of the West Wing:
They all begin to exit.
BARTLET Maxine.
C.J. That's you.
JOSH I know.
Leo, C.J., and Toby leave.
What is Maxine referencing here? From the context of the scene, it's probably a historical figure related to politics or the arts. I went over the list in Maxine_(given_name) but couldn't find anything I recognize. Epideurus (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
(I asked on the Humanities desk instead of the Entertainment desk because I'm guessing the reference isn't a pop-culture one but a historical one.) Epideurus (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to fandom.com: "When the President calls Josh Maxine, he refers to Hallmark Cards character Maxine, known for demanding people to agree with her." . --Amble (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the cards I see here, Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness. --Lambiam 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- More background on Maxine here: https://agefriendlyvibes.com/blogs/news/maxine-the-birth-of-the-ageist-birthday-card Chuntuk (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the cards I see here, Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness. --Lambiam 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
January 14
Ministerial confirmation hearings
Is there any parliamentary democracy in which all a prime minister's choices for minister are questioned by members of parliament before they take office and need to be accepted by them in order to take office? Mcljlm (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No individual grilling sessions, but in Israel the Knesset has to approve the prime minister's choices. Card Zero (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Is an occupied regime a country?
If a regime A of a country is mostly occupied by regime B, and regime B is later recognized as the representative of the country, while regime A, unable to reclaim control of the entire country, claims that it is itself a country and independent of regime B. the questio"n arises: is regim"e A a country? 36.230.3.161 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you talking about a Government-in-exile? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is based on the definition of a country. Anyone in any place can claim to be a country. There is no legal paperwork required. There is no high court that you go to and make your claim to be a country. The first step is simply making the claim, "We are an independent country." Then, other countries have to recognize that claim. It is not 100%. There are claims where a group claims to be a country but nobody else recognizes it as a country, such as South Ossetia. There are others that have been recognized in the past, but not currently, such as Taiwan. There are some that are recognized by only a few countries, such as Abkhazia. From another point of view. There are organizations that claim they have the authority to declare what is and is not a country, such as the United Nations. But, others do not accept their authority on the matter. In the end, there is no way clearly define what is a country, which makes this question difficult to answer. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Taiwan
is a country,
although I suppose the fact that this has multiple citations says something. (Mainly, it says that the CCP would like to edit it out.) Card Zero (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- 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)
- Taiwan
- Instead of trying to draft an abstract, do you have a concrete example you're thinking of? --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- One should always maintain a distinguish between countries and the regimes administering them. Syria was not the Assad regime – Assad is gone but Syria remains. Likewise, Russia is not the Putin regime. Identifying the two can only lead to confusion.
- What makes a geographic region (or collection of regions) a country – more precisely, a sovereign state? There are countless territorial disputes, several of which are sovereignty disputes; for example, the regimes of North and South Korea claim each other's territory and deny each other's sovereignty over the territory the other effectively administers. Each has its own list of supporters of their claims. Likewise, the People's Republic of China and Republic of China claim each other's territory. By the definition of dispute, there is no agreement in such cases on the validity of such claims. The answer to the question whether the contested region in a sovereignty dispute is a country depends on which side of the dispute one chooses, which has more to do with geopolitical interests than with any objectively applicable criteria. --Lambiam 10:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- At least in part, it depends on other countries agreeing that a particular area is actually a nation and that the government that claims to represnt it has some legitimacy; see our Diplomatic recognition article. For many nations, recognition would depend on whether the Charter of the United Nations had been adhered to. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
One of the peculiarities of the Cold War is the emergence of competing governments in multiple countries, along a more or less similar pattern. We had West and East Germany, South and North Vietnam, South and North Korea and ROC and PRC. The only thing that separates the Chinese case from the onset is that there was no usage of the terms West China (for PRC) and East China (for ROC), since the ROC control was limited to a single province (and a few minor islands). Over time the ROC lost most of its diplomatic recognition, and the notion that the government in Taipei represented all of China (including claims on Mongolia etc) became anachronistic. Gradually over decades, in the West it became increasingly common to think of Taiwan as a separate country as it looked separate from mainland China on maps and whatnot. Somewhat later within Taiwan itself political movements wanted (in varying degrees) to abandon the ROC and declare the island as a sovereign state of its own grew. Taiwanese nationalism is essentially a sort of separatism from the ROC ruling Taiwan. In all of the Cold War divided countries, there have been processes were the political separation eventually becomes a cultural and social separation as well. At the onset everyone agrees that the separation is only a political-institutional technicality, but over time societies diverge. Even 35 years after the end of the GDR, East Germans still feel East German. In Korea and China there is linguistic divergence, as spelling reforms and orthography have developed differently under different political regimes. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference with Taiwan vs. the other Cold War governments is that pre-ROC Taiwan was under Japanese rule. Whereas other governments split existing countries, Taiwan was arguably a separate entity already. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the UK, the long-standing diplomatic position is that they recognise governments not countries, which has often avoided such complicated tangles. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Photos in a novel
I'm reading a certain novel. In the middle of Chapter II (written in the first person), there are three pages containing photos of the hotel the author is writing about. Flicking through I find another photo towards the end of the book. I think: this must be a memoir, not a novel. I check, but every source says it's a novel.
I've never encountered anything like this before: photos in a novel. Sure, novels are often based on real places, real people etc, but they use words to tell the story. Photos are the stuff of non-fiction. Are there any precedents for this? -- Jack of Oz 20:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, the novel is Forest Dark by Nicole Krauss. -- Jack of Oz 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- IIRC Loving Monsters by James Hamilton-Patterson has some photos in it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bruges-la-Morte by Georges Rodenbach, 1892. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can quickly go to the fiction stacks and pull a dozen books with photos in them. It is common that the photos are in the middle of the book because of the way the book pressing works. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? I would like to hear some examples of what you're referring to. Like Jack, I think the appearance of photos in (adult) fiction is rare. The novels of W. G. Sebald are one notable exception. --Viennese Waltz 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This post in a blog "with an emphasis on W.G. Sebald and literature with embedded photographs" may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Thanks. So, this is actually a thing. Someone should add it to our List of Things that are Things. -- Jack of Oz 18:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This post in a blog "with an emphasis on W.G. Sebald and literature with embedded photographs" may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? I would like to hear some examples of what you're referring to. Like Jack, I think the appearance of photos in (adult) fiction is rare. The novels of W. G. Sebald are one notable exception. --Viennese Waltz 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "adult" did not come up until you just decided to use it there. I stated that there are many fiction paperback books with a middle section of graphics, which commonly include images of photographs. You replied that that is rare in adult fiction. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Photonovels, you mean? Card Zero (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was assumed that we are talking about adult fiction, yes. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "adult" did not come up until you just decided to use it there. I stated that there are many fiction paperback books with a middle section of graphics, which commonly include images of photographs. You replied that that is rare in adult fiction. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found Photography-Embedded Literature – Annual Lists, 2010-present, a "bibliography of works of fiction and poetry... containing embedded photographs". Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to paste a photo in here. What I am referring to is fiction paperback novels. They don't have to be fiction. Some are non-fiction. That is not the point. The book is a normal paperback, but in the middle of the book the pages are not normal paperback paper. They are a more glossy paper and printed in color with pictures. There is usually four to eight pages of pictures embedded into the middle of the otherwise normal paperback novel. It is very common in young adult novels where they don't want a fully graphic book (like children's books), but they still want some pictures. Out of all the novels where there is a graphic insert in the middle, some of the graphics on those pages are photographs. I've been trying to find an image on Google of books where the center of the book is shiny picture papges, but it keeps pushing me to "Make a photo album book" services. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clarification: "novel" refers only to works of fiction. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you name one adult fiction (not YA or children's) novel which has a section of photographs in the middle? --Viennese Waltz 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- So having photos in the middle of a book is quite common in non-fiction (example: I have a bio of Winston Churchill that has photos of him during various stages of his life). Publishers do this to make printing easier (as the photos use a different paper, it is easier to bind them in the middle… and photos don’t reproduce as well on the paper used for text).
- It is certainly rarer for there to be photos in works of fiction, simply because the characters and places described in the story are, well, fictional. But it obviously can be done (example: if the fictional story is set in a real place, a series of photos of that place might help the reader envision the events that the story describes). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just realized another area for confusion. I was personally considering a any image that looks like a photo to be a photo. But, others may be excluding fictional photographs and only considering actual photographs. If that is the case, the obvious example (still toung adult fiction) would be Carmen Sandiego books, which are commonly packed with photographs of cities, even if they do photoshop an image of the bad guy into them. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tom Hanks's novel The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece tells a story of adapting a comic book into a movie, and includes several pages of that comic book and related ones. (To be clear, these are fictitious comic books, a fiction within a fiction). Where the comic book was printed in color, the book contains a block of pages on different paper as is common in non-fiction.
- ...and then of course there's William Boyd's novel Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928–1960, which is a spoof biography of an artist, including purported photos of the main character and reproductions of his artworks (actually created by Boyd himself). As our article about the book explains, some people in the art world were fooled. Turner Street (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tom Hanks's novel The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece tells a story of adapting a comic book into a movie, and includes several pages of that comic book and related ones. (To be clear, these are fictitious comic books, a fiction within a fiction). Where the comic book was printed in color, the book contains a block of pages on different paper as is common in non-fiction.
- I just realized another area for confusion. I was personally considering a any image that looks like a photo to be a photo. But, others may be excluding fictional photographs and only considering actual photographs. If that is the case, the obvious example (still toung adult fiction) would be Carmen Sandiego books, which are commonly packed with photographs of cities, even if they do photoshop an image of the bad guy into them. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
January 15
Refusing royal assent
Are there any circumstances where the British monarch would be within their rights to withhold royal assent without triggering a constitutional crisis. I'm imagining a scenario where a government with a supermajority passed legislation abolishing parliament/political parties, for example? I know it's unlikely but it's an interesting hypothetical.
If the monarch did refuse, what would happen? Would they eventually have to grant it, or would the issue be delegated to the Supreme Court or something like that? --Andrew 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Our Royal assent article says: In 1914, George V took legal advice on withholding Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill; then highly contentious legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through Parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. He decided not to withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time". Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not British, but there was the 1990 case of King Baudouin of Belgium, whose conscience and Catholic faith would not permit him to grant assent to a bill that would liberalise Belgium's abortion laws. A solution was found:
- (quote from article) In 1990, when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens that liberalized Belgium's abortion laws was approved by Parliament, he refused to give royal assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudouin was de jure Belgium's chief executive, royal assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions—the Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion—Baudouin asked the government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. The government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the king is temporarily unable to reign, the government as a whole assumes the role of head of state. All government members signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the government called the bicameral legislature in a special session to approve a proposition that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.
- There's no such provision in the UK Constitution as far as I'm aware, although Regents can be and have been appointed in cases of physical incapacity. -- Jack of Oz 15:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- A more likely scenario in your hypothesis is that the Opposition could bring the case to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom who have the power make rulings on constitutional matters; an enample was Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament in 2019. 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Fratelli Gianfranchi
Can anyone find any information about Fratelli Gianfranchi, sculptor(s) of the Statue of George Washington (Trenton, New Jersey)? I assume wikt:fratelli means brothers, but I could be wrong.
References
- "Daily Telegraph: A New Statue of Washington". Harrisburg Telegraph. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. August 18, 1876. p. 1 – via Newspapers.com.
The statue was executed by Fratelli Gianfranchi, of Carrara, Italy, who modeled it from Leutze's masterpiece
TSventon (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Fratelli Gianfranchi" would be translated as "Gianfranchi Brothers" with Gianfranchi being the surname. Looking at Google Books there seems to have existed a sculptor called Battista Gianfranchi from Carrara but I'm not finding much else. --82.58.35.213 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The city of Carrara is famous for its marble which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. Xuxl (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the light of the above, the mentions in the article of "the Italian sculptor Fratelli Gianfranchi" should perhaps be modified (maybe ". . . sculptors Fratelli Gianfranchi (Gianfranchi Brothers)"), but our actual sources are thin and this would border on WP:OR.
- FWIW, the Brothers (or firm) do not have an entry in the Italian Misplaced Pages, but I would have expected there to be Italian-published material about them, perhaps findable in a library or museum in Carrara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the translation for Fratelli Gianfranchi as a footnote. I agree that more information might be available in Carrara. TSventon (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The city of Carrara is famous for its marble which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. Xuxl (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
January 16
Can I seek Chapter 15 protection while a case is ongoing in my home country or after it finished ?
Simple question. I don’t have Us citizenship, but I owe a large debt amount in New York that can’t legally exist in my home country where I currently live (at least where the 50% interest represent usury even for a factoring contract).
My contract only states that disputes should be discussed within a specific Manhattan court, it doesn’t talk about which is the applicable law beside the fact that French law states that French consumer law applies if a contract is signed if the client live in France (and the contract indeed mention my French address). This was something my creditors were unaware of (along with the fact it needs to be redacted in French to have legal force in such a case), but at that time I was needing legal protection after my first felony, and I would had failed to prove partilly non guilty if I did not got the money on time. I can repay what I borrowed with all my other debts but not the ~$35000 in interest.
Can I use Chapter 15 to redirect in part my creditors to a bankruptcy proceeding in France or is it possible to file for Chapter 15 only once a proceeding is finished ? Can I use it as an individiual or is Chapter 15 only for businesses ? 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:6CE2:1F60:AD30:6C2F (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't answer questions like that here. You should engage a lawyer. --Viennese Waltz 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chapter 15 bankruptcy does cover individuals and does include processes for people who are foreign citizens. The basics. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
January 17
Raymond Smullyan and Ayn Rand
Did Raymond Smullyan ever directly discuss or mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism? I think he might have indirectly referenced her philosophy in a a fictional symposium on truthfulness where a speaker says that he(or she) is not as "fanatical" about being as selfish as possible as an earlier speaker who said he himself was a selfish bastard.Rich (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess not. Smullyan wrote so much that it is difficult to assert with certainty that he never did, but it has been pointed out by others that his Taoist philosophical stance is incompatible with Rand's Objectivism. --Lambiam 12:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
January 18
"The Narrow Way" issued to prisoners in 1916
In his book 112 Days Hard Labour, about prison life in England in 1916, the Quaker Hubert Peet says:
- On entry one is given a Bible, Prayer Book, and Hymn Book. In the ordinary way these would be supplemented by a curious little manual of devotion entitled “The Narrow Way,” but at the Scrubs Quakers were mercifully allowed in its place the Fellowship Hymn Book and the Friends’ Book of Discipline.
What was this book The Narrow Way?
I thought the question would be easy to answer if the book was standard issue, but I haven't found anything. (Yes, I'm aware that the title is a reference to Matthew 7:14.) Marnanel (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Letters of a Prisoner for Conscience Sake - Page 54 (Corder Catchpool · 1941, via Google books) says "The Narrow Way , you must know , is as much a prison institution as green flannel underclothing ( awfu ' kitly , as Wee Macgregor would say ) , beans and fat bacon , superannuated “ duster " -pocket - handkerchiefs , suet pudding ... and many other truly remarkable things !" so it does seem to have been standard issue. TSventon (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Google Books finds innumerable publishers' adverts for The Narrow Way, Being a Complete Manual of Devotion, with a Guide to Confirmation and Holy Communion, compiled by E.B. Here's one. Many of them, of widely varying date, claim that the print run is in its two hundred and forty-fifth thousand. Here it's claimed that it was first published c. 1869, and Oxford University Libraries have a copy of a new edition from as late as 1942. Apart from that, I agree, it's remarkably difficult to find anything about it. --Antiquary (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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
*grim**grin*Commons category Official portraits of Donald Trump (First presidency) only contains variations of the portrait with Donald Trump smiling. But Photographs of the official portrait of Donald Trump only contains photos incorporating Trump's official portrait with a vigorous facial expression, which is otherwise not even included in Commons?! This seems inconsistent - what is the background and status of either photo? --KnightMove (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Sorry where are you seeing this page 99 you are referring to? KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 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)
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)
- 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)