Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:18, 22 September 2022

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.

September 14

USA: what would a Republican president have done differently than FDR for Great Depression?

After the stock market crash of 1929. Every once in a while I find articles of Republicans during FDR's period who "opposed the New Deal program." Then what would Republicans have idealized to have done differently? And would FDR have been hated by Republicans more during his time period, then with a few decades after his time period? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

We don't do speculation. This question is impossible to answer without a great deal of speculation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hope the answer was to my topic and not my post. My post is a different question than the title. And I've seen from experience that admins will shut down the title rather than my post. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Presidency of Herbert Hoover pretty well covers what a Republican president did during the Great Depression. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of critics of the New Deal and you will find many Republicans, some of which detail what they would have done. A common theme you'll find is that printing a lot of money to pay people to do rather pointless busy work was not beneficial and prolonged the depression. That is an oversimplification of the policies enacted and cannot be proven as we can't go back and try a different strategy to compare results. As always, it is far easier to be certain your opinion is absolutely correct if it cannot be actually tested. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the work was helpful. So many infrastructure projects like subways and dams are from Depression-era government projects. The Depression had a deflation trap even with all that money (was it really printed? Borrowing is not the same as printing. I thought Keynesian economics wasn't popular till after the Depression). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From family stories, my Great-Grandfather hated FDR… wouldn’t even speak his name (and just referred to him as: “That man in the White House”). Apparently great-granddad was a staunch free market man… he hated the New Deal and thought it was prolonging the Depression (and that it wasn’t the government’s job to “interfere” in the economy). He felt that the economy would dip lower without FDR’s policies, but that it would rebound sooner if the government did nothing. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it, there was danger of serious civil unrest: see Bonus Army for a taste of it. The New Deal relieved some of the pressure. Otherwise maybe the electric boogaloo might have been in the 1930's and we'd be talking about the three-galoo now? www.econlib.org/scott-alexander-on-herbert-hoover (paste the url since that link appears blacklisted) is a book review review, of Scott Alexander's review of a Kenneth Whyte's biography of Herbert Hoover, that also gives a little more context. I read the Alexander review a while back and it is very interesting and funny, though awfully long. Hoover comes across as a perhaps loveable scoundrel, and not very clueful about running the government. So things might have gotten messy. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kindleberger's history of the Great Depression is fantastic, even if it is no very easy read.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

College textbooks between undergraduate and graduates.

So I'm aware in many sciences, the textbooks for Master's degree is the same for bachelor's degree. Such as the case for textbooks of inorganic chemistry, and spectroscopy. (Not counting 100-level or 200-level). Can anyone think of any majors, science or non-science, where textbooks are specifically different between upper-undergraduate and graduate? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

It's likely that someone at MSc level would switch to reading specialised textbooks on individual topics, rather than one big one. University-level teaching in the sciences loves mega textbooks that cover every aspect of a topic at least a bit, I'd expect that to fall off once you go to graduate level. But this is all a generalisation. Blythwood (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could get pdfs of current college textbooks for free. They're too expensive to non-college students (and even college students have to pay if their scholarship isn't good enough). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know during the covid a lot of textbooks became PDF files, I was able to download several newer-editions of my textbooks from undergrad. Textbooks on toxicology, environmental chemistry, even the ___ 4 dummies. You might not be able to download the most recent edition, well that's what the 2nd recent edition is for. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Why were 4 dummies books free? The supply chain didn't break completely, and free pdfs would reduce sales. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all like free stuff, and when I was an undergrad (way back in the last millennium), I had to buy many of my textbooks second-hand from older students who no longer needed them, or borrow them on short-term loan from the University library. However, from my subsequent experience as both a bookseller and an editor of science textbooks, let me point out that publishers have to invest a lot of money to commission, edit, promote and print textbooks, which then enter into competition with textbooks from other publishers and may not be widely adopted. In order to cover both the prepublication and post-publication costs (including authors' royalties, ongoing production and distribution costs, retailers' discounts, etc.) of both the successful and unsuccessful titles, and to make a profit (they're not charities) publishers have to charge accordingly. If too many free (often pirated) copies of a title circulate, its publisher may lose money, be unable to invest in future titles, and may even fold: my own former publishing employer, founded 1768, no longer exists as an independent entity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.160 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also forgot to say this is a scrap argument. The costs of taking a university course far exceeds the cost of a textbook, which can be $200. Exceptions would be if you're enrolled in a state-university. Most people that can afford to buy houses or pay expensive rent, can afford expensive textbooks. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I know private college is usually much more than $1,000 per semester but that's irrelevant if I've decided not to go to college and I'm far too poor to afford to buy house(s) or pay expensive rent. $200 is high by book standards and a lot of money for personal curiosity and you don't even get 1/40th of a bachelors for spending the $200. A lot of the people buying $200 textbooks with their own money are at least investing (in themselves), if they pick the right major and live in a mobile home for awhile maybe they can save money till they beat the stock market's average ~8% compounding (inflation-adjusted)? Let's see, if they would've averaged $40K/yr for the next 44 years after high school without college but spent $60K/yr on pricy private school then started averaging $100K for the next 40 years they would've profited $4000K-$240K=$3760K, $2160K more than $1600K without college. $240K*1.08**44=$7093K. Or $3117K if you get only 6% inflation-adjusted. I guess you're supposed to invest some of your extra salary, in that case if you invest enough of the extra salary at 6 or 8 till age 50 (let's say $20K/year from 22 to 32 since salary will be below lifetime average, then $40K/year till 42, then $60K/year, but smoosh it into a smooth rise tracking salary rise of equal profit so you don't have to live on $40K/year for like 1 year when the savings rate suddenly jumps $10K) it should be more profitable than investing the $240K that same 1.06 or 1.08 to the 44th power. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I teach general biology at a community college. The text for that one course is more than $200. And then there's the lab manual (another $40 plus, and that's produced in house). Not to mention any additional ancillaries. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If, after thorough review, they became sure nothing needed to be changed (probably more likely in Introduction To Homeric Studies or Sumerian Grammar than Coronavirology), and they couldn't think of a way to improve on the 2022.5 edition, so they add one comma without changing the meaning and make the edition without the comma illegal, how much does the value of the 2022.5 physical textbook drop right after? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "upper-division undergraduate textbooks" turns up various discussions and results... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is also do textbook authors / publishing companies ever explicitly make a textbook for graduate-only or so. And I wonder what subjects would that be. I can't imagine, for example, a philosophy or history textbook for graduate-course only. But it would be 2 versions, 1 for grad and 1 for undergrad. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(I am a University math professor.) Textbooks in mathematics used by graduate students are generally different from those used by (upper-level) undergrads. This is because the subject is taught very differently at these two different levels. For example the typical undergraduate presentation of calculus is very very different from the treatment of the same topic at the graduate level. Same goes for linear algebra and others. For example the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis aka "Baby Rudin" is intended for upper-level undergrads, while Rudin's other textbooks on the same topic are meant for graduate students. The Graduate Texts in Mathematics (GTM) is a very prestigious series of textbooks published by Springer, intended for graduate students and researchers. They also publish Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics (UTM), which is intended for advanced undergrads. (I am using a UTM book in one of my undergrad courses now.) Often a grad student or researcher will find particular UTM books useful, but even advanced undergrads would typically not be able to follow the level of GTM books. Staecker (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was a History major back in the day… At the upper levels, we were really focusing on reading primary source material, not text books. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly in the sciences (I was a chemistry major), textbooks become less important at higher levels; by the time one is a PHD student, it is likely there are no nextbooks, you are probably working directly with journals like Journal of the American Chemical Society or Synthesis or something like that as your texts. The point of graduate/terminal degrees is that you are working at the highest level training to be a professional academic, so you're learning from the same sources academics use. --Jayron 32 14:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NAZI NZ

Were there any pro-Nazi or more generally pro-Axis movements in New Zealand before or during WWII? 195.62.160.60 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right politics in New Zealand says no notable such movements. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, there was an active NSDAP/AO branch in Samoa (with a very peculiar history), and Samoa was under NZ control with League of Nations mandate. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third Stanza of the Battle Hymn of the Republic

Hello all. I have tried looking it up, but to no avail — does anyone know why so many performances of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” exclude the third stanza (“I have read a fiery gospel…”)? It’s always seemed odd to me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.12 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until you asked this question I didn't even know that that stanza existed. I can't recall ever hearing it or seeing it printed in a text. So, it is probably not performed often because many other people are likewise unaware of it. Why it is not printed more often would be the relevant question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason the second, third and fourth stanzas of the Star-Spangled Banner are rarely performed as well. And I don't think one in ten Canadians are aware that O Canada has more than one stanza and probably much fewer than that have ever heard even one of the last three being sung. Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to O Canada, it doesn't. When the government first made it the official anthem they also cut it to one stanza in English and one in French, and that's still true for today's version. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the third stanza, as it's pretty insulting to the British. (And by they way, its anniversary is today.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the premise of a short story by Asimov. Shells-shells (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the third stanza was the one that goes:

”Nah nerr tee tum tee yummtee

yum tee TUM tee tum tee tee,

Nehrdy yum dee dum dee DUM teedum

tee tumpty tum dee dee

Something something

something something

la dee dahh, de da tee tee

His Truth Is Marching ON.”

(at least that’s how I always sing it) Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the idea that the Gospels can be represented by a row of bayonets is going a bit too far. It's quite a popular hymn in British churches, but I've never seen that verse in a hymn book. Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some references:

...in the verse that is sometimes omitted, the idea of vengeance is clearly articulated in imagery of fire, steel, and crushing. The English Hymn, p. 476

The third stanza spoke of a “fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel,” thereby suggesting some connection between the gospel of Christ and the nation's military agenda. And the Word Became Flesh: Studies in History, Communication, and Scripture, p. 302

In a 1920s tract, the California pacifist, Fanny Bixby Spencer, warned that the “Battle Hymn” actually vitiated the nation's claims to exceptionalism. For, she insisted, it was difficult to differentiate the “war intoxication” the song encouraged from the bloodlust of the "Turks when they go out to kill Armenians. They too have read a fiery gospel writ in rows of burnished steel," foretold in their own holy book. The Battle Hymn of the Republic: A Biography of the Song, p. 13

Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure I've sung the burnished steel bit, but it would have been getting on for forty years ago and in a Methodist Church in Cornwall during a Remembrance Day service, not at a patriotic American event. DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For much the same reason the second verse of God Save the Queen is deprecated:

O Lord our God arise,

Scatter her enemies,

And make them fall;

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On her our hopes we fix,

O save us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2409:E801:B5C5:61FA:5702:17F6 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not deprecated, but reserved for "time of war". Although not (as far as I know) used in recent conflicts, my late parents both remembered singing it during the Second World War, when it was thought appropriate. BTW, the last line is usually "God save us all". Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of violent national songs, I'm reminded of the first stanza of La Marseillaise which closes with the line "Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras, ègorger vos fils, vos compagnes", "ègorger" being a French word meaning "to slit the throats of". --Jayron32 12:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, both the first verse of the Marseillaise and the third verse of the Star-Spangled Banner talk about the spilled blood of the enemy. It just sounds so much prettier in French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last line is equally horrible, and there's long been a vocal minority who don't want to sing about drenching the fields in the filthy blood of enemies (see [1]). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen stepmother

If Camilla outlives Charles, I assume she won't be queen mother since she isn't William's mother. Is there any precedent for the term "Queen stepmother", or will she simply be the queen dowager? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just “Queen Camilla”. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any PROOF that she would be Queen Dowager, but I do note that Queen_dowager#British_queens_dowager and this page from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England suggest that Queen Dowager at least was at one point the correct title. Given how slowly Britain changes its royal laws, it's probably still the case. --M @r ē ino 20:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the last Queen Mother suggests that the title was only included in her official style to avoid confusion with the other Queen Elizabeth. As far as I can tell, Queen Mary was always known as "Queen Mary"; there's not much likelyhood of there being another Queen Camilla in her lifetime. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last monarch to have a second spouse was James II and VII, who's second wife Mary of Modena was not the mother of either of James's children to succeed to the throne, Mary II or Anne. However, given that James and Mary of Modena were ridden out of the country in the Glorious Revolution, I'm not sure that counts; she did outlive James and BOTH of his daughters who reigned, so was a living stepmother of two monarchs, if that means anything. Before that, it was Henry VIII, who was outlived by Catherine Parr, who only outlived him by a year, and Anne of Cleves, who lived into the reign of Mary I. Catherine would have thus been a living stepmother to one monarch, Anne of two. Prior to that, Henry IV had a second wife, Joan of Navarre, who lived into the reign of Henry VI, so was a living stepmother for Henry V. The ever fecund Edward Longshanks (19 legitimate children!) had a second wife, Margaret of France, who lived into the reign of Edward III, thus serving as a living stepmother for Edward II. If you count the Empress Matilda as monarch, her stepmother Adeliza of Louvain lived into the reign of her grandson Henry II, thus was stepmother of Matilda while she reigned. That's all of the English/British stepmothers of monarchs I can find back to the conquest. If we include Scotland back to around the same time, then Euphemia de Ross, second wife of Robert II of Scotland lived into the reign of her stepson Robert III, and Saint Margaret of Scotland saw one of her stepsons, Duncan II of Scotland on the throne, as well as three of her own sons. That takes us back to the 11th century as well. Those are all of the stepmothers of Scotland prior to the union of crowns. --Jayron32 23:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, thanks for all the research! —Mahāgaja · talk 07:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs, and List of Scottish monarchs helped. --Jayron 32 12:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [2]explains the difference between the Queen Mother and Queen Dowager. Princess Victoria (the mother of our last Queen Regnant) told the prime minister she wanted the title of Queen Mother. He told her: "You are the Queen's mother, you have that distinction, but you are not the Queen Mother." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2403:C401:A8A9:8A15:4895:1E3C (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation appeared in Laurence Housman's play Victoria Regina, in which the PM went on to explain that only a person who had been a queen could become a queen mother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (explorer)

what was his political position: royal absolutist? and his religion: Anglican, Catholic, or Puritan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.167.152 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article states he was buried in St Sepulchre-without-Newgate, which is Anglican. At that point in history, it would be weird bury a non-Anglican there. I can't help you about his politics. --M @r ē ino 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for the religion. I wait for the other one.

Somewhat speculative, but politics in the early 1600s were much aligned with religion. If Smith tended towards Puritanism, then he might also oppose royal power, particularly as both James I and his son, Charles I, both criticised and later persecuted Puritan preachers. Those who espoused the high church theology promoted by James and Charles are more likely to have supported royal perogative over parliament. At this stage, Puritanism was largely a movement within the Anglican Church of England, except for a small minority who left the established church and who were called Seperatists, so I'm not sure that we can infer much from Smith being buried in his parish churchyard. Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a reference;

The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings (p. 395) says Smith was "no Puritan".

Captain John Smith: A Select Edition of His Writings says that Smith believed "that the puritans only simulated great piety".

Alansplodge (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be buried anywhere else at the time? I rather think the CofE had something of a monopoly. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The slightly later Bunhill Fields was the place where London's dissenters were buried from 1665. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

A good mayor of Birmingham in a lean year

We all know the dig at Neville Chamberlain, but who said it? It is often attributed to David Lloyd George, sometimes to Winston Churchill, and by at least one writer to Lord Hugh Cecil. I have been unable to nail it down. Can anyone here help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in Newspapers.com (pay site), a 1940 blurb said "the remark is credited to Lord Curzon." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Rees says in his Cassell Companion to Quotations: "Noël Coward ascribes to Lord Birkenhead (F. E. Smith), 'The most we can hope for from dear Neville is that he should be a good Lord Mayor of Birmingham in a lean year.' Also attributed (and possibly more correctly) to Lord Hugh Cecil in the form 'He is no better than a Mayor of Birmingham, and in a lean year at that. Furthermore he is too old. He thinks he understands the modern world. What should an old hunk like him know of the modern world?' Quoted in Lord David Cecil, The Cecils of Hatfield House (1973)." The Smith and Lloyd George attributions can both be taken back to the 1930s though: [3]. The trouble is that all of the names mentioned so far, apart from maybe Lord Hugh Cecil, are of people commonly dragged in to tie loose quotations to. --Antiquary (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, did you have the "Chips" diaries? Don't recall from an earlier question. I can't tell the year from this preview or see the fn 173. I think this preview is Churchill in Collier’s October 16, 1937. Wondering if Churchill might be the ultimate source of attribution to F. E. Smith. David Cecil doesn't look very definitive. fiveby(zero) 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Channon, but have somehow managed to make Google Books shew me a little more. It was 1938 and Terence O'Connor who Chips says quoted F. E. Smith. It was over bridge with Harold Balfour at Robert Bernays's "horrid little flat". Roy Jenkins, in his Churchill, gives it to Lloyd George, but without date or source. The Spectator in 1936 ascribed it to LlG, using the form "is said to have been Mr. Lloyd George's summary of the capacities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer". Yes, in the Colliers article "he also quoted Lord Birkenhead’s view of Mr. Chamberlain as “an adequate Mayor of Birmingham in a lean year.” . DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full 1936 Spectator article "Middle-Class Business Man" reprinted in The Living Age. "P. Q. R." is, i think, Tom Jones which would add some weight for Lloyd George. Or is "P. Q. R." an often used pseudonym? All i find are Kelvin and Jones. fiveby(zero) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-person national executive

When a state has multiple people forming the chief executive, rather than just one, what do we call it? I'm looking for something to describe the Swiss Federal Council and the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, so royal terms like diarchy and coregency, and nonconstitutional setups like duumvirate and triumvirate, are wrong. I thought of plural executive, but that's just something about US politics. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collective leadership Xuxl (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-president redirects to a dab page about presidents. I guess it is a thing. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the term directory. --Lambiam 08:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State flags

I was reading today's "Did You Know" about the Flag of Liechtenstein and followed that by viewing State flags. I see that some have a trianglular white/cutout on the right (eg Denmark). Is this a cutout (the flag has a lack of material there) or a white area (the flag is a rectangle)? What about Norway with the blue "tongue"? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Swallowtail (flag). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] It's an actual 'cut-out' or 'swallowtail' with two points, known also as a Splitflag. This seems to be a Scandinavian custom, used by Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland, where flags for certain purposes retain this shape from Naval or at least military usage. Our relevant articles on en-Wikipedia do not (as far as I can find) give a particular reason for the custom – perhaps articles in the relevant-language Wikipedias do.

Compare also the (obviously unrelated) Flag of Nepal. Is there a vexillologist in the house? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.160 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this video you can clearly see the split tail. --Lambiam 11:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This forum page says that the shape developed from medieval gonfalons, an example being the French Oriflamme banner. Another contributor suggests that a reason for the shape is that you can have a bigger flag with less cloth than a rectangle, making it lighter and more manageable. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Flag of Ohio is a swallowtail. It is the only flag of a US state that is not rectangular. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British regal names

Apparently British monarchs can choose anything as their regal name. So, for example, once Charles III dies or abdicates and William, Prince of Wales becomes the new monarch, he can choose to call himself William V, Arthur, Philip or Louis. He can even call himself Charles IV. Can he call himself King Magniafazzula or King Purple Banana? Can he choose a female name? Can he skip numbers and call himself William VI or Charles V? Are there any rules about this? JIP | Talk 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's the UK, I'm assuming there is a law somewhere about it that was created (likely before time immemorial), but as I understand it, the power to choose a regnal name is pretty much unlimited (cf. MacCormick v Lord Advocate) except by the fact that you cannot choose a name that was already in use (unless the legitimacy of said use is in question, which is why Charles III can be Charles III despite Charles Edward Stuart having made claim to be Charles III before him). That said, such a fantasy naming is highly unlikely. As for regnal numbers, they serve to distinguish from others with the same name, so skipping numbers is not really a problem (see regnal number#Queen Elizabeth II for example). Regards So Why 11:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The legal precedent of EIIR in Scotland suggests that William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales might choose to style himself as William XXX. --Lambiam 11:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how. The informal precedent established by Elizabeth says that a monarch uses a roman numeral one higher than the prior highest numbered monarch of either Scotland or England in cases where the numbers are different; the highest numbered William of either realm was [[William ~~III~~ IV of ~~England~~ the United Kingdom]], ~~who was also William II of Scotland~~ That would make a putative King William IV V. AFAIK, there has never been a monarch numbered William XXIX in any realm worldwide, never mind England or Scotland (or Wales, for that matter). Other than the Heinrichs of the House of Reuss, which number into the 40s or higher, I don't know of any regnal number that has ever gotten that high. --Jayron 32 12:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True but in MacCormick the court decided that numbering "was part of the royal prerogative", so he could choose "XXX" for himself. Regards So Why 13:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As far as I know, they can choose any name at all. It's their monarchy, after all. Most choose their first given name, and those that didn't choose a different given name, i.e. both Edward VII and George VI had "Albert" as their first given name, and used that (or the nickname "Bertie" in informal settings) before they became King. Queen Victoria was "Alexandrina Victoria" from birth. Prior to the Hanoverian succession, AFAIK, no British, English, or Scottish monarch had more than one given name even from birth. The use of multiple given names appears to be a peculiarly German trend that was introduced to the British monarchy with Georg Ludwig of Hanover. All subsequent British monarchs had multiple given names from that point, with Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David being the record with seven. --Jayron 32 11:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have we forgotten William IV, uncle of Queen Victoria? He was so pleased that he survived beyond his niece's eighteenth birthday, thus depriving her mother of the chance to be regent. 2A00:23C6:2403:C401:A8A9:8A15:4895:1E3C (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William IV's first name was "William", so doesn't apply to "Monarchs who chose something other than their first name as their Regnal name". --Jayron 32 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't about Monarchs who chose something other than their first name as their Regnal name. It's about the Prince of Wales, who may or may not use his first name as his regnal name when the time comes. 146.200.241.57 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is about British regnal names in general. Prince William was just used as an example. JIP | Talk 22:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name is (as far as I can tell) not formally adopted until accepted by the Accession Council which "confirms by name the identity of the new monarch and formally announces the new monarch's regnal name". I'm not sure that there's any mechanism for them to reject a name, but I suppose that the council members could refuse to sign off the proclamation on the grounds that the name chosen was too silly, provoking a constitutional crisis. But this is idle speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demise of the Crown and Boris Johnson

Further to my question of September 12 "Queen Elizabeth" I have come across an interesting piece of legislation. Our article on Demise of the Crown states that the Demise of the Crown Act 1702 states that it ensures that "office holders stay in office for six months".

This raises an interesting possibility that could very well have happened if Her Majesty had died after Boris Johnson announced his intention to step down but before Liz Truss was selected as the new Conservative party leader - not the Prime Minister. Could Boris Johnson have used this legislation as a pretext to stay in office for six months or to void his resignation.

Legally it seems perfectly possible that this is an outcome but it seems almost certain that it would have provoked a constitutional crisis. Would the new monarch have been forced to use his prerogative powers to dismiss his government and call an election?

I appreciate that this is a hypothetical but undeniably it's a very interesting scenario. Andrew 23:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister appeared to have very little to do following Her Majesty's death (in terms of constitutional actions - I am sure there was plenty happening politically and administratively). The main difference would have been that the Accession Council would have been chaired(?) by the previous Lord President of the Council, Mark Spencer, after which one of the first duties of the new monarch would presumably have been to ask Liz Truss to become PM. The six months' continuation of Parliament and Offices under the Crown is to cover the absence or inaction of a recognised successor. It allows time for said successor to confirm/replace officers without undue haste or interruption of functions. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Demise of the Crown Act 1901 amends the previous act, thus clarifying the intention, as follows: "1 Effect of demise of Crown on holding of office. (1) The holding of any office under the Crown, whether within or without His Majesty’s dominions, shall not be affected, nor shall any fresh appointment thereto be rendered necessary, by the demise of the Crown." --Lambiam 13:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Thank you signs for firefighters

I've recently been cataloguing images on wildfires. One category that's stayed with me is thank you signs and displays thanking firefighters in the United States for their work. I've found they've stuck with me deeply, a kind of folk art about overcoming adversity. (The ones in California and other states where wildfires are particularly common are, understandably, often particularly complex and striking.) I've also seen them after hurricanes and COVID, but not as often.

There's a lot of images of these signs already on Wikimedia Commons; firefighter and National Guard photographers seem to try to take pictures of them when they can, and I've built a category on Wikimedia Commons, which now has over 60 photos in it. Are there sources on this phenomenon for a Wikipedia article? I've found it hard to Google but if it's possible to build an article on them I'd love to do it. Blythwood (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I've found it hard to Google" = almost certainly unnotable. Signs in support of this, that and the other thing are pretty common. What makes firefighters unique in that regard, and more importantly, what's there to say about the topic in a standalone article? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the fact that they can be killed by their occupation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an article with wider scope? No idea what you’d call it, but the touching phenomenon goes behind signs, there’s a Thank a first responder day and a Firefighter appreciation month. Some recent news coverage: [4], [5], [6]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the wider scope, you'll still need sources that cover the topic itself in depth. Coverage of instances is not sufficient. (One can find news articles about cases of marriage proposals being interrupted,^[7][8][9] but that is no basis for an article [[Interrupted marriage proposal]].) --Lambiam 20:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vajont dam

Alberico Biadene, the Italian engineer and one of the Vajont disaster's major responsables, born in 1900, died in 1985. Can you help me to find the day, month, and cause of death? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.148.25 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get sources for making map videos?

Hello, if anybody knows Emperortigerstar, I want to make videos like he does, but I don’t know what sources to get from, of course, Wikipedia is the first thing I go to for sources, but I kinda need more than that, I have checked some of the citations on the wiki but most are books I need to buy or are way back machine links which half of the time don’t work. (By the way, I want to make a map video about the [conquest of Cyprus]) Thank you to anyone who responds. Oh and if you have any sources for the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus please link them, that would be great! Thank you again. Natieboi (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just looking for maps themselves, or are you looking for sources to make new maps? --Jayron 32 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

government directions.

could government policies/guidelines/contracts/rules be considered statutory merely because it's issued by a public body? who's responsible to enforce something like so that isn't backed with the force of law? Grotesquetruth (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the administrative actions of government are not statutory unless produce statutes. You seem to be chronically confused about the different between the executive, administrative, legislative, and judicial elements of government. As a former UK civil servant, my understanding of the situation is:

Executive - this is the taking of substantive policy decisions which will inform actions taken in other spheres. The right to do so resides with various government ministers, and there are laws which set this out, but the making of policy is not, itself, a function of the legal system any more than a liquor license makes selling beer part of the legal system. This power is frequently partly devolved to junior ministers and senior civil servants.
Administrative - these functions of government are also enumerated by law, but again, they are not themselves functions of the legal system (except when the administration in question is the administration of justice, for example). Administration is mainly conducted directly or indirectly by civil servants, in pursuit of both the laws and the policies set out by the other parts of government. It can also involve the enforcement of civil law, and some civil servants - such as planning inspectors in England and Wales, for example - may have specific powers equivalent to those of the judiciary in order to carry out those roles. However, exercising those powers is not the main work of these individuals, but rather one of several tools at their disposal.
Legislative - while the government proper leads on legislation, it generally requires the involvement of the whole legislature, and many legislatures may have mechanisms (such as Private Members' Bills) for legislation to be initiated separately from the government itself. This bit is the making of statute law. The primary legislation thereby enacted may enable the creation of secondary legislation - statutory instruments, rules and regulations - in which the administrative arm will be significantly involved. But the majority of administrative activity resulting from legislation is not, itself, law-making.
Judicial - this is the interpretation of the law, primarily by judges but also by civil servants with limited judicial powers, as discussed above. The precedents thereby established (in a common law jurisdiction) will also become part of 'the law' in the broad sense, although if detailed legal responses from government are called for, the judge may direct the legislature to put forward a new bill addressing the issue.

The law is not magic, and while in principle the law covers all aspects of life, in practice most activities, including activities of government, are not themselves part of the legal system. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A statutory rule is a rule that is laid down in a statute. A set of rules is only called a "statute" if it has been issued by a legislative body. Government agencies are not legislative bodies, so the rules they issue are not statutory. --Lambiam 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, in Northern Ireland the term "statutory rules" is used for delegated legislation – rules that are not enacted by a legislative body, but that nevertheless have the force of law because the authority to impose such rules has been delegated (by statutory law) to some other body. --Lambiam 17:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a carryover from the fact that in Ireland, as in Britain, this form of legislation used to be known as Statutory rules and orders (S.R.O.)? 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:8073:C144:2B11:6CDD (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate answer is that every jurisdiction uses its own vocabulary in its own peculiar way; and we can't answer universally what makes some laws a "statute" or a "regulation" or an "ordinance" or whatever. Depending on jurisdiction, there may be different uses of all of these similar words. --Jayron 32 18:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Nudism in Montpellier

French artist Frédéric Bazille documented that the fishermen of Montpellier worked in the nude during the mid-19th century, and this greatly upset some people. What’s the history behind this? Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find evidence that the Montpellier fishermen worked in the nude in real life, rather than on canvas – specifically that of Le Pécheur à l'épervier. Bazille submitted two works to the Salon in each of the years from 1866 to 1870, when he died. For the 1869 Salon he submitted Le Pécheur à l'épervier and La Vue de village. In most years only one work of his was accepted for the exhibition, and 1869 was no exception. La Vue de village was accepted, Le Pécheur à l'épervier was rejected. Bazille was disappointed, because he considered the latter painting the better of the two. One may surmise that the reason behind the rejection was that prudism trumped nudism (the exhibition in 1884 of a painting by Sargent portraying a socialite showing some cleavage had created a scandal), but I found no specific indication that in this case other than artistic considerations were in play. --Lambiam 08:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cézanne's Bathers: Biography and the Erotics of Paint (p. 92) describes the challeges faced by Bazille in painting male nudes at that time. Apparently, classical and religious nude men were fine, it was the modern setting which was the problem. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for any confusion. Lambiam and Alansplodge, I accept both of your answers. However, my original question was getting more at the historical practice of nudism in Montpellier, and has little to do with the artist or the painting. Both the Russian and Italian Wikipedia articles on Fisherman with a net (1868) mention that the people of Montpellier "practiced nudism widely despite the strong attempts of the local authorities to limit and prohibit the practice". That's the kind of history I was wondering about, more in the context of people's history of labor practices and how they fit into local society. The reason I found this interesting in the first place, was because I remember reading many years ago that this was a common practice, not just for fishermen in Montpellier (who were likely trying to protect their clothes from getting wet or smelling fishy), but IIRC, nudism was common in many other working situations, such as industrial labor, where clothes could get caught in machinery and kill the workers. There's also a famous scene in the Chernobyl miniseries where workers had to remove their clothes to clear debris (fictional, of course, but this is what I'm getting at). I also seem to recall that coal workers worked nude due to the heat. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recall is correct: see History of nudity#Early modern, last paragraph. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.160 (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that Montpellier fishermen used to worked in the nude, but, as I wrote, I could not find evidence corroborating the claim. The Russian article predates the Italian; the respective paragraphs are almost identical in content. If the Italian did not copy the Russian, they must have had a common source, but neither cites a source. BTW, the claim in it:Pescatore con rete that the painting was rejected due to its eccessivo realismo leading to oscenità fails verification; the cited source merely states that it was rejected by the jury "precisely because it was so shockingly modern and veristic".^[10] --Lambiam 13:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Which is one of the reasons I’m asking the question. There’s not enough information available about it. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

United States mayors by party affiliation

Is there any map like like this showing the parties of mayors instead of governors? -- 177.32.61.128 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most US cities, the office of mayor is officially non-partisan, even if a given mayor is a known member of a party. Also, there are nearly 20,000 cities, towns and villages in the US, so gathering all of that data would be a challenge. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Gathering this data for any office isn't a problem in Brazil, since our elections happen on the same day nationwide under a more centralized system. I hadn't considered the that office of mayor was non-partisan in the US, since there's a list with the mayors of the 50 largest cities. -- 177.32.61.128 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the jurisdiction. According to mayor of Los Angeles, "Under the Constitution of California, all judicial, school, county and city offices are nonpartisan." However, that is not so for New York City, as you can glean from 2021 New York City Democratic mayoral primary. I believe Cullen328 is a Californian, which could have colored his perception of what is true in "most US cities"; on the other hand it could also be that he's actually studied the question and knows that to be true (I certainly don't know that it's false). --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is far easier to verify the party affiliations of 50 big city mayors than a vastly larger number of mayors of much smaller cities. Note that three of those mayors are not a member of a party. Plus, each of the 50 US states sets its own election laws and the powers of cities and their mayors varies widely. A few states do not register voters by party affiliation, and it is an unofficial matter. Some cities have "strong mayors" with an extensive staff and executive power over every city department. Others have "weak mayors" who play a mostly ceremonial role, and the real day-to-day power is in the hands of an appointed civil servant called a city manager. In some small cities, the mayor is not elected by the voters, but is rather a member of the city council selected by that body to chair their meetings. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, according to the National League of Cities, three quarters of US mayors are elected in non-partisan races. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In smaller American cities and towns, the mayor is often a part-time job, with the mayor typically holding a "real" job during the normal workday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. They usually get a stipend plus reimbursement of expenses, but nowhere near enough to live on. I lived for decades in a city of about 20,000 people. The long time, very popular mayor was also a registered nurse. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile in Brazil, even the mayors and council members of the tiniest towns get enough money to live like kings, apart from receiving all kinds of benefits and being able to hire family members and friends... 177.32.61.128 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. --Jayron 32 18:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serra da Saudade

Population: about 800 people
Mayor Alaor's paycheck in July: 12939.58 BRL (doesn't include any of the special benefits)
Marcelo's (the mayor's son) paycheck for working in the city hall in July: 12950.29 BRL
90% of Brazilians make less than 3500 BRL a month.

177.32.61.128 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that such a map has ever been created… Just too many too many towns and cities, and too many variations on how mayors are elected/appointed. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have there ever been independent NATO three-letter country codes?

According to List of NATO country codes, tha NATO used two-letter country codes before adopting the ISO country codes. So I assume that there have never been independent three-letter country codes, as there are the IOC country codes or the UNDP country codes? That basically means that in the tables comparing country codes a specific field for NATO has become obsolete and now is a purely redundant information to the ISO codes only. Right? --KnightMove (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something has become obsolete does not mean that information about its meaning is redundant. The English word true-penny is obsolete, but fortunately we can look up what Shakespeare meant when he lets Hamlet say: "Ha, ha, boy ! say'st thou so ? art thou there, true-penny ?"^[11] A reader might encounter the code "RQ" in an old NATO document and wish to know which geographical entity it referred to. --Lambiam 18:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean "obsolete means redundant". But when the NATO three-letter code just is the ISO three letter code, and has never been anything else, what's the use of listing it separately? This is also a potential source of errors. Tanzania was wrongly claimed to have a distinct NATO three letter code TZN for 14 years (instead of ISO-3166 TZA) before I corrected it. If you don't know that the NATO code is the ISO code by definition, you can't realize the mistake immediately. If you do know it, well... what's the point in having a distinct NATO field? --KnightMove (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood; I thought you meant the digrams were redundant, but you mean the trigrams. The NATO code set is not identical to that of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. Unless the list we give is incomplete, the NATO code set lacks the ISO trigrams ALA, BES, BLM, CUW, GGY, IMN, JEY, MAF, MYT and SXM. It has additional continent trigrams ABB, EEE, FFF, NNN, SRR and UUU, a trigram for NATO countries NTT, trigrams for fictional entities XXB, XXE, XXG, XXI, XXL, XXM, XXN, XXP, XXR, XXS, XXW and XXY, and moreover ACI, ANT, CSI, HQI, JNM, JQA, PFI and SCG, the latter formerly an ISO alpha-3 code but now removed. I am not sure of the status of FYR and YUG. In any case, the respective codes are independently maintained and may independently be updated, the only relative certainty being that trigrams in the intersection of the two code sets will have the same meaning in both. --Lambiam 11:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I see now that there is the potential to add "NATO-only countries" to the overview, and then the field in its own right still makes sense. --KnightMove (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Coexistence of Corporeal/ incorporeal matter

What could be a few examples of such matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotesquetruth (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Corporeal matter and Incorporeal matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The literal meaning of the adjective incorporeal is, "not having a body", but the usual meaning is, "having no material form or physical substance". So then "incorporeal matter" is an oxymoron. The philosophy of matter has been a hotly debated subject though the centuries – that is, hotly debated by philosophers and hardly anybody else. See also the section Incorporeality § Philosophy. As commonly used, a substance refers to something material, but philosophers also use the term for non-material concepts. The philosopher Giordano Bruno, now considered a martyr for for free thought and speech, argued in his book De la causa, principio, et uno (1584) that matter is a single potency comprising both corporeal and incorporeal substances.^[12][13] On the other hand, he concedes that "the matter of corporeal things is different from that of incorporeal things".^[14] I find it difficult to see how Bruno meant the concepts of corporeality and incorporeality to be understood. --Lambiam 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is out of curiosity, but could incorporeal subjects as in intellectual creations be shared? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the fourth century, the nature of Christ (homoousion or homoiousion) was a hotly debated topic on every street corner. Hence the proverbial reference to the inclusion of "every jot and tittle". What happened to Arius after he was rehabilitated led the general public to remark "I told you so":

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died.

…Then there is the “matter” of semantics, which is entirely incorporeal. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics is a cognitive process. The brain, presumably, is corporeal. The mind may be incorporeal. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mind is cognitive processes. Your sentence is nonsensical if you change out other body systems and their process "The stomach is corporeal, digestion may be incorporeal" "Legs are corporeal, walking may be incorporeal". "The heart is corporeal, blood flow may be incorporeal". --Jayron 32 17:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, modern conceptions of mind further decentralize and extend its reach beyond the individual. Remove a smartphone from someone for an entire day and watch them go through withdrawals, as if part of their mind now exists in the cloud. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: @Jayron32: From our article on mind: Mind or mentality is usually contrasted with body, matter or physicality. QED. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

essence?

How true is it that any event/action of the past, acts as guides in recalibrating inefficiencies of the present economy? Grotesquetruth (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is very vague, to the point of being impossible to answer. If you want to know about the effect of a specific event or action from the past, please ask about that. --Jayron 32 15:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vagueness invites a highly specific response. Central bankers constantly review history to figure out what to do now, six days to six months before they actually know what’s going on. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People who attempt recalibration to address inefficiencies of the present economy have little else to go by than experiences of the past. Since economic efficiency depends on a chaotic system, they are generally not very successful. --Lambiam 12:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once quipped that being an economist is like driving a car forward while only looking in the rear-view mirror. Xuxl (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central bankers have had very good success in some economies, as evidenced by the very rapid increase in wealth (total or per capita), if that is an acceptable measure. And, they do so with both rear-looking views of the economy and ... theory. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What impact does the Super Bowl winner have on recalibrating inefficiencies of the economy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People over shields

The comic book Asterix is set in a fictional Gaul village, that manages to escape the Rome conquest during the Gallic Wars because their druid prepares a magic potion that gives super strength. One of the characters is the chief Vitalstatistix, who is always transported over a shield carried by two guys. See here. The comic is focused on humor and satire, and there are frequent jokes about Vitalstatistix falling from the shield because of the bearers' incompetence.

Now seriously, is such a thing based on any custom from those ancient times, or is it completely made up by the comic to begin with? It seems quite impractical and dangerous for real-life, but being a satire it could also be that they laugh about the actual danger and impractibility of some real custom by showing it in an exaggerated and caricaturized manner. Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Merovingians says "The army also acclaimed new kings by raising them on its shields continuing an ancient practice that made the king leader of the warrior-band." Further details, including this 19th-century painting, at French wiki article. Now this is centuries after the purported time, but it shows not necessarily made up of whole cloth. What we'd really need is a source where the cartoon creators talk about their inspirations. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) From Tacitus, Histories, book IV [15]: "Among the Canninefates there was a certain Brinno, a man of a certain stolid bravery and of distinguished birth. [...] Raised aloft on a shield after the national fashion, and balanced on the shoulders of the bearers, he was chosen general." --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the Merovingians one. The comic is not really meant to be historically accurate in the slightest anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if they took things from other time periods and, as long as it sounds as something those crazy Gauls would do, throw it in. After all, there are 39 adventures, and they are all supposed to fit somewhere in the brief 8 years between the battle of Alesia and the death of Caesar. Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate Asterix and his creators. Here's a scholarly article on the practice and it mentions Vitalstatistix (Abraracourcix in the French original) and Brinno on the first page (the only page I have access to). --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mainly concerned with the Roman tradition of raising new emperors on the shield, starting in 361 with Julian, some four centuries after the adventures of Asterix. The article ascribes the physical elevation in this style of the new emperor to his Gallic and Germanic soldiers. For the rest, the article states that the ritual shield raising of new leaders was of Germanic origin. Other than the fictional Gauls of Asterix and the mention of the Gallic soldiers of Julian, there are no suggestions of this being a Gallic tradition. --Lambiam 12:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Jan Lievens - Brinio Raised on a Shield, a 17th century depiction of Brinno, who was the chief of the Germanic Cananefates tribe in AD 70. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_February_4#Heroic_Roman_fashion_-_Asterix_'shield'_inspiration?, tho the link is no longer valid, try "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony". fiveby(zero) 17:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Numbering of German U-boats

Wikipedia says at List of U-boats of Germany: "The submarines have usually been designated with a U followed by a number... When Germany resumed building submarines in the 1930s, the numbering of the submarines was restarted at 1." However, while reading the World War II memoir Iron Coffins, I noticed that the submarine U-230 was newer than the U-557. The linked articles confirm this, and it's not a small difference: the lower-numbered sub was newer than the other one by well over a year, although they were both the same class of sub.

So is there any information as to how those numbers were assigned? --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The U-Boat Wars, Edwin Palmer Hoyt (1986), p. 94 says that after U-100 the numbering ceased to be sequential to give the impression that there were more boats than actually existed, a deception plan by Karl Dönitz. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, Hunt and Kill: U-505 and the Battle of the Atlantic Theodore P. Savas (2004) p. 16 says:

The numbering system of Type IX boats, and indeed that of all German submarines in World War II, at first glance defies logic and continues to confound anyone except the most knowledgeable of experts or those with a superbly developed memory. Instead of numbering boats in the chronological order in which they were commissioned and joined active service, the German Navy designated its submarines more or less according to the sequence in which the construction orders were allocated to the individual shipyards. This arrangement lead to some confusion, because some boats carrying high numbers had been commissioned (and sometimes even sunk) before a boat with a lower number had even hoisted its battle ensign.

He goes on to say that later in the war, whole contracts for older designs were sometimes cancelled in favour of newer designs, with the numbers allocated being reused later. Sounds a bit more plausible than the deception theory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the particular case I mentioned, the U-557 was ordered over a year earlier, construction began over a year earlier, it was launched over a year earlier, and commissioned over a year earlier than the U-230. But if a contract was canceled and then the numbering gap was filled later, that makes sense. Thanks. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deception hypothesis may be based (perhaps inaccurately) on the real German tank problem. --Error (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Abbey

Watching the funeral of Elizabeth II yesterday it struck me how beautiful the choral music sounded as it amplified across the Abbey and reverberated across its ancient walls.

I know the Abbey is an ancient place with parts of it dating to Edward the Confessor. What understanding of acoustics, if any, did medieval church architects have. Or is it merely a coincidence that sung music sounds so spectacular in places like it? —Andrew 09:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a full reply, though I'm sure the answer is that they had a lot of practical knowledge of acoustics. But see acoustic jar for a specific example. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverberation is typically high in large Gothic churches due to the low absorption of the stone walls, largely left uncovered, and the sheer height (see Sabine's reverberation equation). Reverberation does not agree with coloratura but works well with solemn choral music with its slow-moving chord progression. --Lambiam 11:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACOUSTICS OF GOTHIC CHURCHES has a lot of technical details but not much on whether these acoustic features were created intentionally, except to say that there was no need for the spoken word to be audible in medieval churches, that would only come with the Reformation when sermons and Bible reading became important. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That said, using churches (not necessarily gothic) as recording venues for music is a very common thing because of these acoustic features. Xuxl (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The causation is the other way round. Gothic cathedrals were built because they looked wonderful, they fitted the theology, and technology existed to do it (only sometimes; but all the badly-built ones fell down centuries ago). Having built them, people started singing in them, and discovered that some types of music sounded fantastic, while others didn't work so well. Cue the composers writing the sort of music that made the most of the existing acoustics.

Acoustics was not well understood even in the 1800s. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustics and architectual engineering share some mathematical principles. For example, Musical scales are related to Fibonacci numbers and the "golden ratio" (phi) --based on Fibonacci numbers-- has been important in architecture for millennia. It's not entirely coincidental that what looks beautiful also sounds beautiful. I recall an engineering professor who would say "when in doubt, use the phi ratio". Harley Earl probably said the same thing; he and his design studio used it often. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought is that polyphonic singing was introduced into Western liturgy some time after people started building tall cathedrals. So it seems likely that the music was made to suit the building rather than t'other way about. The wonderful Funeral Sentences (sung as the coffin entered [16]) were written by William Croft specifically for use in the Abbey - he was the organist there from 1708 to 1727, and would have known perfectly well how to get the best out of the space. Alansplodge (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies -- Verbarson , you have made the same point above. I should pay more attention. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an echo - Wikipedia must have a very long reverberation! -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where you will find exactly the same point, with examples. Wikipedia:WHAAOE! -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pen tip on a photo

Zooming in to Mamoru Shigemitsu's pen tip at the surrender of Japan, it appears as though the pen's writing tip during signing is on the table cloth, outside the paper, instead of being on the document itself. Why is that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as if his hand and pen are just hovering above the paper at that moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This image, and this one, show him actually putting pen to paper. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Question about royal titles after marriage

Looking at the different royal titles princes and princesses in the UK get after marriage (in particular royal dukes/duchesses), I'm confused as to why the standard format for men seems to be:

HRH The Duke of Cambridge

But for princesses, it becomes:

HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh

In other words, why do royal princes become exclusively known formally as the 'Duke of XYZ' while princesses become 'The Princess ABC, Duchess of DEF'?

113.196.51.134 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, these titles are at the whim of the reigning monarch. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 03:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II was heir to the throne from the Abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, and she married in 1947. William, Prince of Wales married in 2011 and only later became heir to the throne (just this month). William is now also The Prince of Wales, while before his marriage he was Prince William of Wales. The version without "The" was a courtesy title. --Amble (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small technicality (which doesn't contradict anything you say): Elizabeth was Heir Presumptive, because George VI could theoretically have produced a son to supplant her. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

113.196.51.134 -- There's also a traditional British rule that a title which a woman has because of her marriage is never directly prefixed to her first name (forename). So "Diana, Princess of Wales" was correct, but "Princess Diana of Wales" was incorrect (I assume it's the same for Kate now). This was also the original reason for "Mrs. John Smith" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensively discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 May 21#Need someone who REALLY knows how British royal titles work. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

easements right.

doesn't the easements right pose a free riders problem? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is quite unclear. If you gave us a hint of 1) which meaning of "easement" you are referring to, and 2) what you mean by a "free riders" problem, somebody might be able to give you an answer. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easements do not arise randomly and arbitrarily. While such rights can be created in many ways, these are based on grounds that are generally deemed reasonable and equitable. A free-rider problem arises when people avail themselves of benefits in a way that is generally considered unreasonable and inequitable. Thus, the two tend to be mutually exclusive. --Lambiam 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link easement (see Lambiam's first link). If there is abuse of a privilege you may be able to take action under the law of nuisance. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes correct, but when lets say a portion of property is shared under mutual benefits of specific parties for making way of a hindrance in the name of easements, don't you think there could be a possibility of others(public) who could be free riding who weren't a part of the mutual agreements of the specific party circles in the first place? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an easement to have free riders. Unless someone's property, say a swimming pool, is actively guarded, people may come and enjoy a free dip to which they have no legal right. They may camp and picnic without permission on someone's private meadow, or fish in their private pond. Perhaps effective guarding becomes more challenging when multiple parties are involved that hold rights, a practical issue. But I don't see how having an easement situation makes the potential problem more pressing. --Lambiam 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits

Who is the historical character in this painting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.75.134 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Sir Out-of-Focus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a Spanish noble or king. Can you find it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.75.134 (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The attire, specifically the millstone collar, makes this a person from the mid-16th to mid-17th century, not necessarily from Spanish nobility, but a European gentleman of some importance. For many similar portraits, the identity of the portrayed character has been lost to history, and they are now catalogued as just "portrait of a gentleman"; e.g. this one, this one and this one. --Lambiam 11:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this Portrait of a Gentleman, where the pose is very similar. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this page at the Detective Conan Wiki identifies it as Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. (But I have a feeling that you already knew that.) I'm not offhand finding a potrait of Charles V that matches it, however. Deor (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the OP's similar question last week, it may well just be a generic figure based on what was a common style of portrait painting in the 17th century. The fact it's out of focus makes it even more likely it's not based on a specific painting that could or should be recognized by viewers. Xuxl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The figure may be wearing a collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which is consistent with the theory he represents Charles V, who was head of the order. Most portraits of the Emperor in his forties and fifties also have a similar head shape, with the beard masking his excessively elongated jaw. But the image appears not to match any of the many contemporary portraits of Charles V. --Lambiam 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure it's not an Anthony Van Dyck portrait? It certainly doesn't feel like Charles V. The fashion is about a century too late. It has a very Van Dyck style to it. --Jayron 32 23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo, See File:Van Dyck - Portrait of William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke (1580-1630), 1632-1638.jpg. Dead ringer. --Jayron 32 23:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article on him, with additional portraits by other artists. William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke. --Jayron 32 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To view a copy, reproduced in colour with higher resolution, click here. --Lambiam 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Excuse me, but can you help me also for this Biblical portrait: 1, 2?

The colors and style seem to be from the Rococo period about a century later. I can't place it, unfortunately. --Jayron 32 11:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many KJVs?

How many King James Version bibles have been printed? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean number of editions or number of copies? 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of copies printed in book form (i.e. millions?).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a number, but this website says; "With more than 6 billion copies published, the Bible is the most popular book in the world, and the King James Bible is the most published Bible translation". Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to also says about the King James Bible specifically that "an estimated 1 billion or more copies have been published". --Antiquary (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: All of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them have necessarily been printed - some may exist only in electronic format. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-written? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's head

I'm wondering if there's even a rough count of all the individual coins, banknotes and stamps from all the Commonwealth countries that have ever featured a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. Obviously it's "billions", but can we get a more precise count?

This is your homework for the weekend. Extra points for sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Dollar a day...

There is a quotation one sees attributed to John Maynard Keynes - "Whenever you save five shillings you put a man out of work for a day". I have been unable to verify it. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keynes, John Maynard (1931). "Inflation and Deflation". Essays in Persuasion.

@Fiveby: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Keynes was writing in 1931, a time of severe deflation. In 1928, or 1948, his advice would have been quite different. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

US / UK tanks to Ukraine

To begin with, I'm asking this as a German (with a Polish mother and an American Jewish father of Ukrainian heritage): My mendacious government has been claiming for months now it cannot send the German "Leopard" battle tanks as well as "Marder" IFVs long-desired by Ukraine, as none of its allies has done similarly so far in terms of providing Western battle tanks. However, it's a fact, for instance, that Poland has provided more than 200 T-72 battle tanks modernized and adapted to NATO standards to Ukraine.

Hence, I tried to find a rationale why the US and UK as well are still reluctant to provide their tanks to Ukraine - although e. g. the US embassy in Germany recently tweeted in this context that every ally is free to choose the kind of assistance to Ukraine, a hint which is currently under hot discussion in Germany. However, I was unable to find a single article tackling the issue of providing ~~"Anglo-Saxon"~~ US / UK battle tanks.

Therefore I'm asking: Why is this obviously not at all discussed in the Anglo-Saxon world, considering that delivering US or UK tanks to Ukraine would make a huge difference as to ending that goddam war, and also would debunk the said spurious German line of argument for non-delivery, thus probably prompting the lame, lily-livered Huns to finally follow suit (the US / UK governments surely know that the Germans are scaredy-cats in military terms not least due to their ignominious history)? Hildeoc (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I may venture to add an appeal in these abnormal days: Please do talk about this issue to as many people as you can – as this may once get things going to definitively end that senseless, barbarian bloodshed and destruction ...--Hildeoc (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ever simple reasons for the choices made by government leadership? I don't think I know enough about the invasion of Ukraine (or about the foreign policies of NATO members) to offer a solid explanation for this decision. Here is one guess I can offer: So far, the military materiel provided to Ukraine has been for the implicit purpose of defense against Russian invasion. Now, however, Ukraine is undertaking a counteroffensive, which has been highly successful; it could become more successful still should strong support (in the form of a shipment of modern MBTs) be thrown behind it. It may be that the big sticks in NATO are wary of sending military aid for an implicitly offensive (even if counteroffensive) purpose, for various reasons of both foreign and domestic policy. Shells-shells (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc -- The word "Anglo-Saxon" in the way that you used it is actually a kind of calque on a French-language meaning. Many people in the United States would have little idea what you were talking about... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Thanks for pointing this out. However, confer e.g. the definition here (at section in American English): 10. English-speaking; British or American. But I've now changed it anyway. Best, Hildeoc (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no military experience, but tanks are not cars. You can't just hop in an unfamiliar one and just drive to the front. It's probably very, very, very difficult to transition from Russian tanks to American. Also, the maintenance issues are immense. You have to set up a whole new infrastructure and train mechanics to keep tanks running (and tanks need a LOT of maintenance). When you're fighting for your national life, you don't have the time and resources to do that. Better to get whatever Russian tanks ex-Warsaw Pact countries are willing to donate, like the Polish T-72s you mentioned (as well as the ones the Russians leave laying around when they are advancing hurriedly to the rear). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Well, to tell the truth, this is exactly what they've been telling us here with regard to Panzerhaubitze 2000 as well as Flakpanzer Gepard (both being said to be like some of the most sophisticated [German] combat vehicles there are) for months as well – and now? The Ukrainians have been handling both remarkably well already in the past weeks ... Hildeoc (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyiv government has been requesting Leopards and Marders (as well as Pumas, Boxers and Fuchses) for many months. A plan to send 100 Marders was blocked by Scholz in April, the stated reason being, reportedly, that Germany needs them for its own defense.^[17] This was well before the recent success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. On would think that Ukraine accounted for the cost of training and maintenance in calculating the balance. --Lambiam 11:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to later news, Germany dispatched 50 Leopards and 60 Marders to Ukraine later in April.^[18] --Lambiam 11:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: NOPE. That's definitely fake news! Also, I'm afraid I didn't quite get the point of your last post. What were you trying to say regarding the provision of Western MBTs? Hildeoc (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make three points. One: that Scholz earlier came up (if the reporting by Politico is correct) with a very different excuse than his latest one of the necessity of coordination with NATO and the EU. Two and three: that the issues of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and of training and maintenance (now struck out) can hardly have played a role in the reluctance. --Lambiam 13:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I got it. Thank you. Of course, you are totally right: Scholz is indeed a nasty little liar, and the official excuses for his inaction in this respect seem to change with his underwear. (Sorry for being polemical at this point, but this man's shifty demeanor really keeps driving me up the wall. His prevarications actually at times remind me very much of Putin's rhetorical games and distortion of facts.) Hildeoc (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot gummy dispensary-church-cult in Palm Springs

I heard there is one that is registered as a church in Arkansas, but operates in the Coachella Valley. It's a marijuana related religion used as a front to avoid licensing laws. They specialized in cannagummies. What is it called and where is it? 2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a growing problem [19], Coachella Valley Church. 78.141.40.98 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Magical Papyri

Has a complete transcription of the original ancient text of the PGM ever been published?-The Traditionalist (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 471: / Line 471: @@
 I heard there is one that is registered as a church in Arkansas, but operates in the Coachella Valley. It's a marijuana related religion used as a front to avoid licensing laws. They specialized in cannagummies. What is it called and where is it? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917|2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917|talk]]) 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 :This is a growing problem [http://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/12/22/high-praise-pot-churches-proliferate-states-ease-access-marijuana/971871001], [[Coachella Valley Church]]. [[Special:Contributions/78.141.40.98|78.141.40.98]] ([[User talk:78.141.40.98|talk]]) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
+== [[Greek Magical Papyri]] ==
+Has a complete transcription of the original ancient text of the PGM ever been published?-[[User:The Traditionalist|The Traditionalist]] ([[User talk:The Traditionalist|talk]]) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)