Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:55, 27 October 2021

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia: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.

October 20

Rudolf Walles(z)

The Austrian architect Rudolf Wallesz was born 1894 in Vienna, survived the holocaust, naturalised as a UK Citizen 25 November 1946, and became Rudolf Walles in October 1947, at which time he gave his address as 36, Monarch Court, Lyttleton Road, London N2. When did he die? Are any of his works extant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Walles died in 1966 aged 72, registered in Barnet, Middlesex. The 1939 Register describes him as an "Insurance Clerk (Liaison)" born 30 Mar 1894 and living at Brunswick Place, Hove with his wife Ernestine. The Probate Death Index says he died on 31 July 1966 at Barnet General Hospital, his address was 50 Church Crescent London N.8, probate was awarded to his widow Enrnestine valued at £3539. MilborneOne (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London N8 being Muswell Hill. A couple of his watercolours of domestic designs (presumably pre-war) are here, and another for a beach café here. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are Shiva and Vishnu more important/revered than Brahma in Hinduism?

When I went to the Chicago Art Institute I saw a sizable collection of Hindu deities as statues, but I noticed that there were a ton of depictions of Shiva and to a lesser extent, Vishnu. Thinking of the trimurti, I couldn't find any there of Brahma. It also occurred to me that I've heard Shiva brought up quite a bit in my life, and again, to a lesser extent, Vishnu, but rarely Brahma. That led me to the question, are Shiva and Vishnu more important/revered than Brahma in Hinduism? Of course, there is also a chance that this may be a huge generalization, tainted by my own unique experience or simply by what the Art Institute's collection happened to contain. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be one answer valid for all forms of Hinduism in all historical eras, regions etc. In any case, a phenomenon which is visible across a number of mythological systems is that a highest god and/or original creator god becomes a rather shadowy and remote figure who has little to do with the lives of ordinary people, despite being theoretically supreme in the pantheon... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Brahma contains a (to me not entirely clear) passage: "During the post-Vedic period, Brahma was a prominent deity and his sect existed; however, by the 7th century, he was frequently attacked and lost his significance. He was also overshadowed by other major deities like Vishnu, Shiva and Devi.^[10]" The cited source states: Despite his important role, Brahma worship is not very popular today. ... However, the worship of Brahma declined from the seventh century. There are several myths which attempt to explain Brahma’s inferior status after this period. ... The real reason is believed to be the rise in prominence of Vaishnavism and Shaivism, and later of the five or six deities of the smartas, from which Brahma was excluded. Brahma as creative energy was replaced by shakti or Devi.^[1] The Commons has a category Sculptures of Brahma with a subcategory Statues of Brahma. I have not tried to compare this with similar categories for Shiva or Vishnu. --Lambiam 08:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

What gongs is Lloyd George wearing?

The picture shews David Lloyd George together with the Weizmanns, the Snowdens, and Herbert Samuel, at a Zionist Federation dinner held in his honour at the Savoy in 1931. I would like to know what decorations LlG is wearing. Around his neck is the OM, which I believe to be the only British order or decoration he accepted. Sorry it's not a great picture, but I know some of you are red-hot at this sort of thing, DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gongs? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 02:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common British newspaper jargon for awards, medals, honors... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when or where that term originated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary from Malay gong. --Lambiam 07:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But what about the slang usage as an award? When or where did that start? If it's in that link, I'm not seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's first citation for that sense reads "1925 E. Fraser & J. Gibbons Soldier & Sailor Words 106 A gong, a medal. (An old Army term suggested by the shape.)" Note that the explanatory parenthesis is part of the quotation. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the round shape taken by many medals. That makes sense. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (p. 494) by Eric Partridge says "orig, army, l ater all Services: since late C.19". Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with gongshow. Or with flying teapots, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common slang here, which is probably why Duncan thought it would be easily understood. I'm a little surprised that the similarity between a brass gong and a medal would require explanation. Many English middle-class homes would have a dinner-gong to let everyone know when a meal was ready, so perhaps we're more familiar with them. My grandparents had one.Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Alan, that is so middle class. Alas we used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely even people too common to have had, or aspired to, a dinner gong would have been familiar with the cinematic oeuvre of Bombardier Billy Wells? DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My dad's version of the dinner gong would be to march into the living room and switch off the TV, particularly if we were watching Top of the Pops. Caused a great atmosphere over the ensuing meal (which was called "tea", seeing as we lived "oop north"). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awww shucks, I always thought it was J. Arthur Rank himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I've ever heard of a dinner gong, but traditionally in the American West there were dinner-summoning triangles (a rod of metal with two bends)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We had a dinner gong (in our Midwest home) and it never occurred to anyone in the house to compare it to a medal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison under discussion is of a medal to a gong, not a gong to a medal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, David Lloyd George#Honours lists Knight of Grace, Order of Saint John as well as a number of foreign medals, including the French Legion of Honour. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dods Parliamentary Companion has "Awarded special war medals by the King January 1920"[2] 1914 Star, British War Medal, Victory Medal maybe?[3] fiveby(zero) 12:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Expert eye required please in the hope that one of their militaria sages can tell us which is what. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LLoyd George, Caernarvon Castle, 1939 could be Pip, Squeak and Wilfred. fiveby(zero) 13:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice goats. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

forum post quotes from Aitken, William Maxwell (1956). Men and power : 1917 1918. pp. 325–6. OCLC 839402055. concerning the award of the war medals.
in 1910 wearing what i assume is the rightmost in the later photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveby (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that image dated (at source, as well as on Commons) "1939-1930 (no later than 1937..."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:You would have to ask the good people at the Harvard Library why they didn't do five minute's research, or ask someone who knows a little bit about Lloyd George and Zionism, to check their facts. See User talk:Paulturtle#Lloyd George, Samuel, Weizmanns, and Snowdens. for further information and clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would one use the dinner gong to call people to a meal of scrambled eggs :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, for that one would use the breakfast gong. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margo: "Did I hear a dinner gong?"

Tom: "Not unless the chicken jumped out of the oven and banged one." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

OM round the neck, St. John on a medal bar (since he was wearing OM?), war medals, and for the last would he wear only one of the coronation or jubilee medals[4]? Last in the 1939 photo looks like a King George V Coronation Medal or King George V Silver Jubilee Medal. fiveby(zero) 13:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor that is not themself a reliable source on medals cannot reliably determine what gongs he is wearing. That is classic OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: If I relied on "reliable sources" like Harvard I'd think the dinner was at a non-existent hotel (see my link to Paulturtle's talk page above). Anyway, if we can get good candidates for the decorations it narrows down searches for what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. Sometimes you have to do original research in order to know where to look for "reliable sources". Fiveby's suggestions enable us to search for sources which mention those medals in connexion with LlG, and in them we may find something to say what he wore on this occasion. Anyway, the question was asked out of general interest, not a quest for "reliable sources". DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct, but DuncanHill has seen enough of my ref desk contributions to know that I'm just flailing around searching, and I've seen enough of his to know he will put the pieces together in the end and has the background to do so much better than I ever could. To be clear, i am convinced of the first four medals. I'm guessing the last is a KGV coronation, but am confused as to what's worn on the PC uniform in 1910 (is the date wrong and the levee was in 1911? is it and Edward VII? something from when he was a Welsh Volunteer?) And in 1939 why wasn't he wearing both a coronation and jubilee? fiveby(zero) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do many communist countries have standing committees instead of permanent parliaments?

I'm not sure if we have an article about this, but one thing I noticed is that, as far as I'm aware, most communist countries have parliaments which have relatively short sessions, with standing committees serving as legislative bodies when the parliaments are not in session. By contrast, most democratic countries have more permanent legislative bodies and as far as I know generally do not have standing committees but instead meet in regular sessions. Is there a reason in communist or socialist thought that encourages this particular parliamentary structure of legislative bodies with short meetings and the existence of standing committees? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the standing committees are not legislatures, but arms of the executive. They have "regulatory power" (sometimes called secondary legislation which is granted to them by the legislative. Most governments do this. In the U.S. the exactly analogous bodies are called United States federal executive departments, and have been granted power to set regulation by Congress. In the UK, these bodies are the Departments of the Government of the United Kingdom, many of which are called Ministries. The relative power between the legislative and the executive in terms of setting policy varies from state to state, but on paper at least, the various communist committees setting regulation are of a similar framework as other states, from a political theory point of view. --Jayron 32 13:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It is likely because they used as a model the Supreme Soviet, which was so large (1,500 members) that it was extremely unwieldy to have it meet for more than ceremonial sessions. Thus, the real legislative work was done by a much smaller committee (the Presidium). The unstated advantage is that it is much easier to control who is a member of a committee than who is part of the larger body, ensuring compliancy. Theoretically, the Supreme Soviet was freely elected, although it quickly became made up only of members in good standing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, so the chance of dissident voices appearing was pretty small - until the major reforms of the late 1980s. Xuxl (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth pointing out that in most countries, the legislature is NOT permanent. In most countries, the legislature will take breaks and recesses of various lengths, and is not always meeting. These Legislative sessions can last as long as they need for the business of the legislature. The US Congress pretty much currently meets year round, opening a session in January and adjourning sine die in December each year, though as noted at Procedures of the United States Congress, they used to meet much shorter, with sessions often lasting as short as 4 months (December to March). Both chambers will now hold periodic pro forma sessions (often with as few as 1-2 members) merely to avoid being forced to adjourn (which they must do if they go longer than 3 days without meeting), but this is by practice and not by constitution; Congress could open a session on January 3 and adjourn sine die the same day; it would be within their constitutional remit to do so. In the UK and other Commonwealth realms, Parliament sets their own session lengths, but they also don't meet continuously. --Jayron 32 13:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[post transferred to section above]
- You might be in the wrong section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Turkish to English, an encyclopedic synopsis request

Greetings,

Following is research paper in Turkish language from Turkish Studies journal from International Balkan University available on the link given is about linguistics of words 'Uragut' and 'avret'.

I am looking for help in having encyclopedic synopsis for the same in one or two paragraphs to be used in the article Draft:Aurats (word)

Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 8/9 Summer 2013, p. 2659-2669, ANKARA-TURKEY An Old Turkic Word About Woman: Uragut ~ Nurhan GÜNER P.2659-2669 DOI Language Turkish: KADINLA İLGİLİ ESKİ TÜRKÇE BİR KELİME: URAGUT

On side note: My strong gut feeling is similar research papers would be there in Persian languages too, I hope one day We get some help from Persian language linguists

Thanks,

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of the paper is that avrat/avret is borrowed from Arabic and is not related to Old Turkic uragut. In English, the term corresponding to Turkish avret is usually spelled awrah or awrat; see Intimate parts in Islam. The etymon is Arabic عَوْرَة (ʿawra), plural عَوْرَات‎ (ʿawrāt). I suppose you are interested in the shift in meaning to "woman", seen also in Hindi/Urdu. In view of this geographic dispersion, it seems plausible this shift already occurred in Persian, but neither the Persian Wikipedia nor the Persian Wiktionary give any hint in this direction. --Lambiam 10:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish to English, an encyclopedic synopsis request 2

Greetings,

'Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesine Göre 17. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kadın.' is a Turkish language research paper by author Osman Köse, available here @ turkishstudies.net of International Balkan University.

The research paper seem to have 17 th century information related to clothing practices and slavery of Circassian women. Looking for help in in having encyclopedic synopsis for the same in one or two paragraphs to be used in the article Draft:Circassian women.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural term for a specific door arrangement needed

Hello, I am looking for an architectural term that describes a specific layout situation which seems to be rather common (though obviously not ideal) in bedrooms in private homes in the U.S., specifically in smaller homes. I mean a situation where there is an oddly placed closet in the room that doesn't leave for the door swing more room than a small square of floor (like 3x3″). So on entering the room, you would first pass a niche-like area (where you in some cases even have to turn 90 degrees) before entering the room proper.

An architect whom I asked called this, on the top of his head, "pocketed door", while admitting that this is not an official term. "Pocketed door" also didn't give me any Google hits. Is there an architectural term? --Stilfehler (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In form, if not in purpose, such space is similar to a vestibule, which refers to a smaller space near the entrance through which to must pass to enter the larger space. Usually a vestibule refers to such a space at the entrance to a building, before one gets to the lobby, but it would be similar in form to what you are describing. That may give you a start. A pocket door is something quite different. --Jayron 32 17:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added two images (which I should have done right away). The extra spaces that I mean are, unlike regular vestibules, not meant to be there but obvious design goofs that arise when an unskilled builder adds a closet right next to a door. This appears to be something that happens so frequently that it would puzzle me if there is no common name for this phenomenon. --Stilfehler (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "design goof" then it is a sui generis element, and not likely to have a name. If it is an intentional design choice, then it isn't a goof, and may (but does not have to) have a name. --Jayron 32 18:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In these examples, is the door on the left a door to the exterior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, both of them connect the hallway and a bedroom (as seen from the bedroom). In both examples it's a closet that causes the unwanted "vestibule". --Stilfehler (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an intention could be to add a small degree of privacy, in that someone opening the door is immediately confronted by blank wall (as in the right-hand picture) or at least has part of the view obscured, and has to advance to see the main area of the room (and what any occupants might be doing in it). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather the sort of thing one sees in Britain in small hotels or HMO's where a shower or loo has been shoe-horned into a room to make it en-suite. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering for a moment why Britain has health maintenance organizations (health insurance companies) with showers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An architect would usually call it an alcove (IAAA (I am an architect)). They're useful in corner rooms to get to a corridor without eating into usable space in another room, and when opening out into a corridor they're useful to keep passers-by from getting whacked in the nose by an opening door. COrner rooms can be a major layout issue, so we try to put big rooms there so they don't need an alcove ort a stub corridor to get to them. I would never call those examples pocketed doors, at least not in North America. In the cases shown, it's just probably a layout problem of where to put a closet that creates such a circumstance, and in any case the space occupied by the door's swing isn't usable for anything else, whether it's in an alcove or in the room. As others have pointed out, they can also be useful as vision traps. The example shown on the left could not be used in a commercial or accessible residential setting, since it's too hard to get to it and open them in a wheelchair - you need ~18" or ~0.5m side clearance at the latch side so you don't have to back up to get out of the door's way as it swings. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to nail it. All examples that I have seen (and shown here) are corner rooms that open into very small hallways, and the builder obviously had a hard time to find a better spot for the closet. --Stilfehler (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Central Council for the Care of Cripples

Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People says:

"Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People was founded in 1932 by Dame Georgiana Buller, the Vice Chairman of the Central Council for the Care of Cripples."

So what was the CCCC, and what happened to it? I can't find anything about it later than the mid-1950s. Marnanel (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was still going under the original name in 1958. [5] Making some assumptions, it seems to have morphed into the Central Council for the Disabled by the 1960s, [6] and might now be a charity called Disabled Living, but the evolution is less than clear. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Committee for the Care of Cripples, afterwards Central Council for the Care of Cripples, afterwards Central Council for the Disabled (London) from 1963 [7]

As to what it did:-

The Central Council for the Care of Cripples, located at Carnegie House, 117 Piccadilly, London, is a federation of local organizations there. It was founded by Sir Robert Jones in 1919 for the purpose of organizing a national scheme to deal with the cripple problem as a whole throughout the United Kingdom, with their main objectives: (a) to organize the provision of facilities for the early discovery and the prompt and efficient treatment of children who would otherwise become cripples. (b) to promote schemes for the treatment, education, training, employment, and general welfare of all cripples. (c) to assist in the formation of local Associations to carry out these objectives. (d) to investigate the causes of crippling and to promote and support measures for their elimination. (e) to act as a central coordinating body for all organizations working for the benefit of cripples and as a central bureau of information on all matters which concern the welfare of cripples. They list four "cardinal points" in their policy: prevention, early discovery, treatment, education, and vocational training. [8]

My guess is that at some, if not most of these functions were taken over by the National Health Service in 1948. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Council for the Disabled merged with British Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled in 1977 to become Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR, of key fame). See Disability Rights UK for what is the current body. See also Remap history page. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this gun shield a stepped frustum with a slit instead of an unstepped frustum with a slit?

To save concrete? To ease concrete mold making? To make the fort art deco? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were built to the Regelbau standards. See also some more examples of Nazi bunkers. Nanonic (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

The Great Pyramid of Giza: 8 sides, or 4?

I find a lot of sites, claiming that the pyramid have 8 sides (observable at equinoxes only), even from "authorized" sources. But I also find sites, still fiercely claiming it has 4 sides. Like, for example, put question "how many sides does the great pyramid have" in Google and Google will answer "eight".

Now, if it have 8 sides: it would be the only pyramid having that, so it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia page, right? That would be a very significant fact (if it is true).

I want to settle this conundrum once and for all and reveal the truth, please help me to do so!

Thank you, Per C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.20.22 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation on ResearchGate includes an illustration (each of the 4 apparent sides has a slight angle down the middle). 2603:6081:1C00:1187:C1F6:2046:A287:CD75 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC) . . . (Or, it has exactly two sides: inside & outside)[reply]

People always forget the side that is resting on the ground (the bottom)… so it’s either 5 or 9. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A true pyramid has 4 faces plus the base, so 5. According to the link provided by the IP, it's not a true pyramid, and actually has 8 faces plus the base, so 9. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sides of the Great Pyramid of Giza are slightly concave, as this image shows. Our article says under Exterior - Casing:

Petrie noted in 1880 that the sides of the pyramid, as we see them today, are "very distinctly hollowed" and that "each side has a sort of groove specially down the middle of the face", which he reasoned was a result of increased casing thickness in these areas.[118] A laser scanning survey in 2005 confirmed the existence of the anomalies, which can be, to some degree, attributed to damaged and removed stones.[119] Under certain lighting conditions and with image enhancement the faces can appear to be split, leading to speculation that the pyramid had been intentionally constructed eight-sided.

The outside was originally "cased entirely in white limestone", so what we see today are only the backing stones and don't necessarily follow the shape of the original exterior. Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is there any way to demonstrate that the casing stones resulted in a true pyramid? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question then regarding the mentioning on existing Wiki page about possible 8-sided shape, is it then considered to be 8-sided, having this 8-sided shape today, or is it 4-sided? I mean, it can't be both, and either it is a True pyramid shape, or it is not. Given the referenced research (Flinders Petrie and the Researchgate paper by Professor Khaled M. Dewidar), there is a strong argument for 8 sides, and not 4. What would be the counter-argument? There is photographic evidence and there is evidence from laser scan. If this effect of 8 sides was intentional (or not) by the pyramid builders, does it have any consequence, if it in fact have 8 sides today? Thanks, Per C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.112.13 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the evidence is that it has 4 sides, which, unsurprisingly after millennia of stone-robbing and erosion, are not precisely flat. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's an element of the coastline paradox to this. If people really want to get picky about the number of sides, surely it should include every facet of every surface block, which would bring the number into the hundreds or thousands, if not millions. Matt Deres (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The structures at Giza and elsewhere are four sided pyramids; not pyramid (geometry)s. More specifically, the Great Pyramid is a pyramid with four slightly concave sides. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is donald trump the most consequential single-term president in u.s. history?

neither debates nor predictions are appropriate here

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

among single-term u.s. presidents, is trump the most consequential? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.131.46 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This calls for debate and should be closed or removed. MarnetteD|Talk 02:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln would disagree. Trump's only the most controversial, by a light year. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Buchanan maybe. -- Calidum 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a Knight move

The book "Chess for Children Step by Step" describes a Knight move as one square along a rank or file and then one square along a diagonal.

The game "The Chessmaster 4000" describes a Knight move as 2 squares along a rank or file and then one square at a right angle.

An Internet site I remember from long ago describes a Knight move as the closest squares a Queen cannot move to.

Why are sources inconsistent on how a Knight move is described?? Do the different descriptions have pros or cons?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They give different but equivalent descriptions. So they are not at odds with each other – which the adjective inconsistent might suggest. If you ask three people to define the rules of any game, assuming they know these rules well and can explain things well, they are bound to come up with different descriptions unless they copy them from somewhere. So, I think, the fact that they are different needs no explanation, Our article Chess has this definition: "A knight moves to any of the closest squares that are not on the same rank, file, or diagonal." That is the longest of all. It is clearly equivalent to the shortest one, that involving the queen, provided that ... one is already familiar with how a queen can move. So in explaining the moves of the various pieces to an absolute neophyte, it imposes an order on how these pieces are introduced. It may also be conceptually more challenging to understand what one piece can do in terms of what another piece cannot do. In general, though, the choice between alternative but equivalent descriptions seems to boil down to a matter of taste. --Lambiam 22:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That last definition is essentially the same one as in the FIDE's official Laws of Chess.

The first two definitions may be viewed as easier for novices to understand than the other two—certainly the book I learned from described the move as L-shaped, i.e. the second definition—but they suggest that the knight passes through one or two other squares on the way to its destination, so additional words are required to make it clear that it actually goes directly to the destination. Pedagogically speaking, it's a trade-off. --184.144.99.72 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the first definition (one along a rank or file and then one along a diagonal) is that if you take it literally, it lets you move to a square adjacent to the starting square (a one-square rook move). For example, your first move might be from e3 to e4, then your diagonal move is from e4 to d3, making the full move from e3 to d3. But that's not a knight move.

With care, the formulation can be made correct, but it does take extra words. --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, that is incorrect. That is 2 squares along a rank or file and one along a diagonal. Georgia guy (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got in and fixed it before I saw your comment -- you were too fast for me. The problem is essentially the same though. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the second of these descriptions would be the best advice for a newbie. The reason for inconsistncy is that chess is very ancient and evolved with time; it's not like someone came up with it in their back room one Wednesday. So while FIDE does govern international chess, it doesn't govern chess sets you might buy in a shop or books or amateur play, all of which may come up with their own descriptions of things. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ain’t it funny how the knight moves! (Ohhh I remember) Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humming a song from 1962 I see. --Jayron 32 17:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement, here is a description from an 18th-century treatise on chess:

The move of the knight is peculiar to himself, and difficult to explain. It is two squares at once (three, including his own) in a direction partly diagonal and partly strait. The house he goes into, is always of a different colour from that which he leaves. It may likewise be said to be uniformly next but one to the latter, although in his passage to it he passes obliquely over the corners of two.^[9]

--Lambiam 22:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In The Queen's Gambit (TV show; I don't have the book with me) I think I remember young Beth described it as something like "one up or across then one diagonal". I remember thinking I'd never heard of any description or thought of it as anything other than an "L" shape.Hayttom (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something to bear in mind is that, in moving from the starting to the destination square, the knight does not move through any of the squares in between, or along a particular route, or else it would be blocked by any other pieces on the intervening squares; it "jumps" from start to destination (as Lambian's quote says in archaic language). The various "path" descriptions are merely aids to visualization, not proscriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.65.29 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May we have a proscription on that spelling, though? --184.144.99.72 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What spelling? You'd prefer "Nite"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proscription ←→ Prescription. --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I was answering hurridly shortly before leaving for a prior engagement, and hence was preoccupied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.65.29 (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hurridly ←→ hurriedly 2A00:23C8:A12:7600:15F9:5CD3:72E:ADE0 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

Roud Folk Song Index and Child Ballads nr in the WP:LEAD of articles about songs

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

When did US become a world Super Star. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.197.198 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 6, 1945. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A gradual process starting from when it started having more people than UK in the 1840s to when it started having more GDP than UK much later to when it started having more GDP per person even later and somewhere along the line it started becoming more important in military and tech advances (some becoming paradigm shifts in the stronger countries and some ignored), started getting invited to those meetings of countries that make laws of war and stuff, pushed down on the deadlocked scale to win World War 1, single-handledly caused a world depression from stock bubbling with mostly borrowed money, became the inventor of Earth's most popular contemporary music for the first time (jazz, then rock and roll), got the most powerful navy which was the UK's thing, saved Europe again (or at least was a big help), became the first nuclear state, the "capital of the world" and UN moved to New York and maybe postwar austerity and problems and India decolonizing and the Suez Crisis kicked UK some more while the war instead helped the US economy without much lives lost or stuff bombed compared to even England. Then after a brief 24.something years at most (even less if you only count the 4 years when it had the only nuclear bombs) USA started a slow decline that continues to this day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on superpower and History of the United States that will help you research the answer to your questions. --Jayron 32 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And hyperpower, which some people have called the US just because the USSR superpower collapsed. And polarity (international relations) and hegemony and American century. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also American exceptionalism. Matt Deres (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

41.114.197.198 -- The 1890s is when European government and military types realized that the United States had the economic power to play a significant role in world affairs if it wanted to. Of course, the U.S. did not directly intervene in European affairs until later, but the Spanish-American war of 1898, annexation of Hawaii, mediation in the aftermath of the Japanese-Russia war of 1905 (which won Teddy Roosevelt the Nobel Peace price), and the journey of the Great White Fleet announced that the U.S. had arrived almost in the top tier of international powers. You can read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, which discusses such issues... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "super star" has become totally degraded due to extreme overuse, being now routinely applied to every flash-in-the-pan person who does something worthy of "going viral" (which itself denotes precisely 15 minutes of fame, after which nobody has ever heard of the person or thing involved). If that's what you mean by your question, so be it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Super Star" implies approval, but being prominent or even pre-eminent can involve notoriety as well as fame. Non-Americans may recognise that the USA is the most powerful nation, but they don't necessarily like or approve of that fact, or of some aspects of the USA and its culture. {The pposter formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.65.29 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the last statement even applies to some Americans; much as they love their country, they also feel it has some serious issues. --Lambiam 22:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1904 Portrait

Hello, I was wondering about the status of this portrait, https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/PORTRAIT-OF-MICHAEL-EMMET-URELL-USWV/1AD8D7312EA2FBE5. Both the painter and the subject died before 1925 so it should be safe. Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf the Groovy, have a look at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain. The instructions there seem fairly straightforward, but note it says you should first determine the country of origin of the image as that will affect the answer. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: Questions like this are better suited for WP:MCQ, where editors familiar with copyright matters hang out and answer questions. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

When did "case" of beer first mean 24 beers?

This section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Tatum#1938%E2%80%931949 refers to a musician drinking a "case" of beer a day. I am trying to pin down how many beers might have been in a case in the years mentioned. A fellow here https://www.quora.com/When-did-a-case-of-beer-first-refer-to-24-beers/answer/Keith-Ball-16 says that a "case" of beer first started meaning 24 beers after the First World War. But I would like a better source for that for the Wikipedia article.

Also, is this the best reference desk section to place this query? Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only how many beers in the case, but the size of each beer. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how reliable LiquorLand Toast magazine is, but there's the article "Crate Moments in History", which seems to claim it originated in 1917 New Zealand (12 bottles worth anyway). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VINTAGE BASS CHARRINGTON BEER CRATE... holds 20 bottles - Bass Charrington was one of the "Big Six" British breweries from the 1960s to the 1980s when (if memory serves) it was rebranded. I don't remember being able to buy a "case" of beer retail in the 1970s when I started drinking, but I suppose it was a multiple of six-pack rings which appeared in the UK in the late '70s. If you wanted to drink a lot of beer back in the day, you went to a pub, or bought a Party Seven (140 fl.oz. can). Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last parade of the Rhodesian Guard Force

A disagreement about the language of tents relating to a piece in the DYK section of the Front Page leads me to ask this. Bill Godwin was the Brigadier commanding Guard Force, and according to Chakawa, Joshua (November 2015), Abel Muzorewa’s Security Force Auxiliaries and After the War of Liberation in Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe (PDF) (PhD thesis), Midlands State University, p. 215 "At the last parade of the force, he told his troops that it was time to quietly unfurl their tents and fade away". This is sourced to The Herald, Saturday 10 May 1980. Now, the question is essentially "did he say unfurl"? The usage seems at odds with the sense intended, which I think is something on the lines of Longfellow's "fold their tents, like the Arabs, And as silently steal away". I assume The Herald means The Rhodesia Herald. So - what did The Herald actually say (and I shall enquire at WP:RX for help with that), and are there any other reports of Godwin's last words to his men? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page (about halfway down in blue text) has a similar quote, given in a signal from Guard Force HQ in May 1980: "...now, the time has come to quietly unfurl your tents and fade away..." It is misattributed to Kipling. I suppose that before the internet, it would have been very difficult to fact-check quotes from half-remembered school English lessons. Alansplodge (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, every Scout knows that you pitch a tent on arrival and strike it on departure. Furling is only for flags as far as I know. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also umbrellas and sails. Perhaps the original writer had in the back of their mind the thought of a ship unfurling its sails in order to depart, and misused the word unconsciously. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.65.29 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd never heard furl or unfurl used about tents until I saw the item in question the other day, and I've done a lot of camping. I can't think of anything in Kipling that could have been misremembered in that way. I did consider Khayam, or at least Fitzgerald, but I can't see anything likely. He could have gone with "To your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David", which surely a Rhodie Brigadier would have known. One can't help thinking of Wolfe at Quebec reciting the whole of Gray's Elegy on the eve of the battle, and deploring the literary decline in soldiery since. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of fishing industry in South China Sea

Good evening, I am working on a school paper about South China Sea, I do in-depth searches to quote and found valuable informations (maybe I'm too wikipedian ;). But after conscencious researches, I didn't managed to find a valuable number. I search how many peoples live from fishery from South China Sea. I think it should be pretty easy to find but... Could anyone find an anwser ? Thank you very much ! Nicolas de Bourgoing (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (and awnser) : After few hours i figured out that it employs about (approximatively) 21 millions all around the SCS, mostly in Vietnam and China... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas de Bourgoing (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder and Helena Normanton

Our article Helena Normanton says she was "the first woman to lead the prosecution in a murder trial". What was the case? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papers of Helena Normanton In 1948 she was the first woman to prosecute in a murder trial (young soldier found guilty of murdering his wife) in the North-Eastern Circuit.
Bourne, Judith (2016). Helena Normanton and the Opening of the Bar to Women. p. 212. R v Sloan citing Daily Mail, 1 June 1948

(ec) Thank you - that detail helped me find reports in the British Newspaper Archive. The murderer was Robert Sloan, 33, a private in the Catering Corps. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but later found insane and committed to Broadmoor. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American post boxes

How does it work with the little flags? Is it up or down if there's post in it? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You put the flag up if you have outgoing mail. The mailman puts it down when he/she picks up the outgoing mail. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the flag will be raised to show that mail has been delivered. Used in rural areas in other countries too. Demonstrated in The Lake House (film).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the mail carrier picks up outgoing mail and delivers some incoming mail, do they lower and then raise the flag? Since there are at least three states (empty; outgoing mail; delivered mail), a binary signalling system is inadequate. --Lambiam 10:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. It does seem rather a palaver and as Lambiam points out, somewhat confusing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not confusing at all. The only purpose of the flag is for the resident to alert the mail carrier that there is outgoing mail in the box. The only time that the flag is up is if the box contains outgoing mail. This is so the carrier does not have to open the box if there is no incoming mail for that address that day. It is really basic. I have had this type of mailbox for many years and this simple system works just fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never known the flag to be raised to show that mail has been delivered. Our article letter box and the Smithsonian source [10] say that this was done in the past, but it must have been quite some time ago. The manual says that the letter carriers only lower the carrier signal flag, and never raise it. [11] Since many people don't collect their incoming mail for several days, this lets the carrier know whether any mail in the box should be taken or left where it is. --Amble (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Apron part names

When fruits or vegetables are gathered and placed into the center of an apron to hold them when the person picks them, what is this part of the apron called (if it has a special name)? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether my mental image of this picking activity is the same as yours, but I'd tend to refer to it as putting the fruits or vegetables in the lap of the garment (definition 2a here: "the clothing that lies on the knees, thighs, and lower part of the trunk when one sits"). In Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Prosepine, picking flowers, "fillde hir Maund [i.e., basket] and Lap" with them. Not really a "part of the apron", though, I suppose. Deor (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 :::No, the evidence is that it has 4 sides, which, unsurprisingly after millennia of stone-robbing and erosion, are not precisely flat. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 16:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 ::::Agreed. There's an element of the [[coastline paradox]] to this. If people really want to get picky about the number of sides, surely it should include every facet of every surface block, which would bring the number into the hundreds or thousands, if not millions. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 18:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
-:The structures at Giza and elsewhere are four sided [[pyramid]]s; not [[pyramid (geometry)]]s. More specifically, are four sided pyramids with slightly concave sides. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517|2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517]] ([[User talk:2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517|talk]]) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
+:The structures at Giza and elsewhere are four sided [[pyramid]]s; not [[pyramid (geometry)]]s. More specifically, the Great Pyramid is a pyramid with four slightly concave sides. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517|2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517]] ([[User talk:2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:963:C77E:2415:E517|talk]]) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 == is donald trump the most consequential single-term president in u.s. history? ==