Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

November 8

Military commanders

Who was the supreme commander of the imperial guards who shoot againt the manifestants on Bloody Sunday in Winter 1905, or in alternative those in charge for a distaccament?
Who was the former royal commander of the French Guards Regiment in July 1789, before they joined the revolutionaires, and the one during the Réveillon in April 1789?
Who was the commander of all the royal guards at the Versailles Palace until October 6, 1789?
Who was the commander of the imperial guards (or the one of a distaccament) that defeated the Decembrists in 1825?
Who was the royal commander of the regiment where the four sergeants of La Rochelle served, and those of the guards who captured them and guards them during the trial and execution in 1822?
Who was the commander of the royal guards who captured the conspirators of the Affair of the Diamond Necklace in 1785?
Who was the supreme commander of the royal guards at Paris during the July 1830 Revolution?
The Duke of Angouleme was the supreme commander of the French expedition againt Spanish liberals in 1823, but who were the other high commands?
Who were the respective commanders of all the royal regiments that presidied Paris in July 1789?
Who were the commanders of the regiments Litovsky and Preobrajensky in February 1917?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.23.141 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #1 Russian Imperial Guard states that the Tsar/Emperor himself served as the supreme commander, and on the rank below him, there were several colonels that served as the second tier of command. --Jayron 32 11:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then can you find who were the respective commanders of the guards in charge for that occasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.7.21 (talk)

For #2, French Guards Regiment seems to say it was Louis Marie Florent du Châtelet, duc du Châtelet, who took command in 1788. --Jayron 32 11:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.7.21 (talk)

For #3, guarding Versailles would have fallen under the purview of the National Guard after the French Guards Regiment mutinied in July, 1789. They were under the command of Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. --Jayron 32 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking of gardes du corp du roi, who were the royal guards of Versailles until October 6, 1789.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.7.21 (talk)

Ah. The English Wikipedia is at Life Guards (France), according to that article guarding Versailles would have fallen under the 2nd Company (1st French Company), who was in 1789 commanded by Philippe Louis de Noailles, prince du Poix. --Jayron 32 12:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

Actually, reviewing the article closer, it seems that each of the four companies took one quarter of the year to guard Versailles. Depending on which quarter of the year it was, a different company would have been at Versailles under the command of its own commander. Regardless, the article lists who was in command of each company in 1789. You should be able to figure it out. --Jayron 32 12:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much.

For #4, if you mean their final defeat, the Chernigov Regiment revolt seems to say the loyalist forces were commanded by Friedrich Caspar von Geismar. --Jayron 32 12:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Can you search even those of the regiments who fought them from the beginnibng? Moreover, von Geismar was an absolutist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.29.74 (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know von Geismar's politics. From his article, he was German by birth, but a career Russian military officer who fought frequently in defense of the Russian state against numerous uprisings. Whether he did so because of his political beliefs or because he received a paycheck, I cannot say. --Jayron 32 12:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

For #5, the article Four Sergeants of La Rochelle seems to say it was General Jean Baptiste Berton, of whom there is not a Wikipedia article. --Jayron 32 12:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you search for the other commanders I've asked?

If you can read French, you can consider w:fr:Jean_Baptiste_Breton (aka "Berton") and w:fr:Quatre_sergents_de_La_Rochelle. The general was betrayed and arrested by a man known as Wolfel – AldoSyrt (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

For #6, assuming it was the same Life Guards as in #3, in 1785 it would have still been the prince du Poix; he had assumed command in 1784. --Jayron 32 12:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was the same Life Guards as in #3, then can you search better?

Why not? The palace guards would have been substantially the same, as there were only 4 years difference. --Jayron 32 13:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a French policeman called Quidor. Can you search information about his life? Thank you very much.

Yes, someone named Quidor was the Inspector at Quartier Le Louvre. However, who are you assuming he's been arresting precisely? Some where arrested in Holland, others in Switzerland, I think a Mayor of London was also involved, thus who's arrest are you enquiring about ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.192.2 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #7, not sure. It only lists the commanders of two of the four companies who served during the Bourbon Restoration until 1830. --Jayron 32 12:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then who were those commanders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.29.74 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you help me with the last four questions? And with those still remained uncompleted? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.192.2 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn how to search in Wikipedia, on Internet, in Libraries. A little help however. For #8 refer to French force Command structure. AldoSyrt (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can you help me for the remain unsolved questions 1-7-9-10, so it's definitely closed? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.70.196 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #7 The supreme commander was the king Charles X as colonel général. For the majors généraux see w:fr:Garde_royale_(France) - AldoSyrt (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then, can you do also the remained 1-9-10, so it's definitely closed? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.177.78 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Campbell-Bannerman's earldom

I asked this @ his own talk page but it's not attracting any interest.

We don't go into detail in his own page, but at List of people who have declined a British honour we say that Henry Campbell-Bannerman declined the Earldom of Belmont in 1905 when it was offered to him. In Relugas Compact it says: With "repugnance" for the idea of the House of Lords, Campbell-Bannerman flatly refused the title set aside for him of the Earl of Belmont …

This intrigues me. I was under the impression that when a peerage is offered, it is either accepted or refused. If it's accepted, only then does the question of the title arise. Usually the prospective peer indicates what name they would like, and that is either agreed or not, and if not a different one is suggested, and so on until everyone's happy. I've never heard of a specifically named earldom being offered to anyone. What was the background in this case? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz I am not sure of the specifics here, but in a similar case, the suggested title of the duchy Churchill declined is generally known. Honours of Winston Churchill explicitly refers to the Duke of Dover (1945) and Duke of London (1955). This paper cites the offer of the first to Winchester Their Noble Lordships (p. 48) and the second to Pelling Winston Churchill (p. 643) with "an imprecise account" in Bulmer-Thomas The Growth of the British Party System (II, p. 204). The ODNB also concurs on the latter ("refused the offer of a dukedom, though he was tempted for a while by the prospect of becoming duke of London").

It may be that it was just the most obvious plausible title, and so was suggested to him at the time - "we could make you Earl of X, wouldn't that sound good?". The following year, in December 1906, the Daily Mirror wrote about the possibility of CB stepping down, noting he would likely get an earldom if so and speculating that therefore "Sir Henry will probably take his peerage designation from the place he has owned for so long in Perthshire, and we shall therefore know him as the Earl of Belmont...". Andrew Gray (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is frustrating, Stephen E. Koss does say The 'Relugas Compact', like the title—Earl of Belmont—which had been selected for Campbell-Bannerman, was a dead letter., but unfortunately it looks like his publisher didn't allow citations. Also Oxford Academic is temporarily unavailable through WP:Library, so can't check the most promising from the bibliographic narrative "The Formation of Campbell-Bannerman's Government in December 1905: a Memorandum by J. A. Spender". Most other works include Edmund Gosse's diary entry that Haldane suggested Viscount Belmont. The only other 'Earl' reference i see is Matthew, H. C. G (1973). The Liberal Imperialists. which cites the "secret" letter, Haldane to Asquith, 6 Oct. @DuncanHill:, this all sounds very unconstitutional if Knollys wasn't just humoring them. fiveby(zero) 23:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I've not heard (or at least, do not recall hearing) of a suggested title for CB before - it certainly would seem contrary to his character to accept one ("a place for which I have neither liking, training nor ambition", and I think his wife was even more opposed). T. G. Otte in his Statesman of Europe: A Life of Sir Edward Grey does mention it in relation to the Relugas Plot, but I do not have the work to hand and Google Books is refusing to let me read what it shewed me briefly 5 minutes ago - IIRC it was in reference to a visit by Haldane to the King at Balmoral. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three responders. It seems to be as I assumed in my question: he was offered a peerage, but the actual title never came into play because he declined the offer. All talk of Belmont as the title was simply others engaged in speculation. If more info comes to light, I'd be interested in seeing it, but for now I'll mark this resolved. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

US federal interest rate hikes

Those are done by the independent(?) federal reserve bank, right? So it is proper to give the US government credit or blame for results of the rate hikes? Without taking sides, I see some of that showing up as election issues and am wondering if it is legitimate to associate the policies of the government with the actions of the Fed. On the other hand, if it's not legitimate but the Fed policies affect voting choices anyway, does that mean that the Fed has outsized influence over election outcomes? Has it received credible criticism over that? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The defeats of Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign in 1980 and George HW Bush's in 1992 have both been at least partly attributed to the Fed pursuing economic policies not favorable to their re-election (though Carter obviously had other major problems). AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, my OR showed that over 40 years, the Fed did not often change course, or accelerate, within three months of an even-year election.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the Fed aren't elected, but like the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors and Chair of the Federal Reserve explains the nomination and confirmation process; it works like any Senate-confirmed nomination. --Jayron 32 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Fed controls monetary policy, whilst Congress controls fiscal policy. Doesn't the latter have significant (though by no means exclusive) influence on the former? Just look at what happened in the UK, when the government decided to run a low-tax high-spending fiscal policy in the midst of the current situation: the Bank of England (the UK counterpart to the Fed) responded by raising interest rates. DOR_(HK), you're our resident economist: How much do fiscal policy decisions (over matters like tax and spending) affect monetary policy decisions by Central banks? To the extent that there is such a link, might criticism of the Government of the day over interest rate hikes just be at least somewhat fair? Eliyohub (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind how S.L.O.W. fiscal policy must be. Even if the legislature agrees to act (spend, tax, refund), and no other barriers arise (veto, court challenge, bureaucratic delay), it takes a lot of time to draft legislation, approve it, send instructions to various entities to enact the law, and actually deliver. If the action is to remove money from the economy (e.g., tax), generally speaking that money must first be earned (salary) or received (interest, dividend, etc), then reported and the tax collected. Call it a two-year process. If the action is a refund or direct subsidy payment, maybe three months to a year. If it is spending, . . . now we’re talking three-to-thirty years or more. Compare that to monetary policy: “Good morning. The interest rate is now X.x%. Have a great day!” DOR (HK) (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point on how fiscal policy might influence monetary policy, after years of what the Central Bank (monetary authorities) might think of as fiscal follies, the CBankers might move interest rates to counter what is happening to the economy. Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan famously did this when the good times got out of hand. The Bank of Japan has been doing it for 30 years. But, we’re on a decade-plus time frame here. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of George Washington's three star insignia

Hi. This painting of George Washington depicts him with a three star insignia.[1]

Is this insignia historically accurate?
If so, what's the origin of this insignia?

For example, here's a photo of Ulysses S. Grant wearing a similar insignia [2]. Ulysses S. Grant's insignia was authorized by War Department's General Orders No. 6. in 1861 [3]. I'm hoping to find a similar order or legislation authorizing George Washington's three star insignia.

80...For the Major General Commanding the Army - gold, with solid crescent ; device, three silver - embroidered stars, one, one and a half inches in diameter, one, one and one - fourth inches in diameter, and one, one and one - eighth inches in diameter, placed on the strap in a row, longitudinally, and equidistant, the largest star in the centre of the crescent, the smallest at the top ; dead and bright gold bullion, one - half inch in diameter and three and one - half inches long.

Helian James (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

When George Washington was recalled to active duty in 1798 to assume command of the U.S. Army during the period of increasing tensions with France, President John Adams made Washington the first American officer to hold the rank of lieutenat general (three stars). After Washington died in 1799, the rank was abolished until War of 1812 veteran Winfield Scott received a brevet promotion to lieutenant general in 1855. Promoted to lieutenant general in March 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was the first officer to hold that substantive rank since Washington...

The Encyclopedia Of the War Of 1812: A Political, Social, and Military History, p. 970. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of one or two stars by generals dates from the summer of 1780 and was copied from the French. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The orders for that were issued on June 18, 1780 and can be seen here. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 1780 would have been during the reign of Louis XVI. Are there any records on why the French adopted this practice? Helian James (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not without focusing on heraldry. It is pre-existing in usage otherwise so the question would be "how an element of heraldry became an indication of rank" in the specific context of the adoption of the epaulette. In that bulletin (1888) about heraldry focused on Versailles, 1697-1701 there is Guillaume de Lort de Sérignan, "lieutenant et ayde major des gardes du roy", "brigadier des armées de S.M." (the precise one star title in 1780, see: Brigadier#France, Mestre de camp, and Maréchal_de_camp) et "Chevalier de l'ordre militaire de St Louis", armorial: "d'az au lion d'or, tenant de sa patte dextre une étoile de même", so, Lion, gold, holding one Star the same but the same Versaillers also has "549 Pierre Brin, maistre-queux de la bouche du roi" (a chef), two stars: "D'az, au cep de vigne d'or, fruité d'arg, soutenu d'un échalas de méme, accomp en chef de deux étoiles aussi d'arg." and an accounter, Charles Dubois-Guérin, "contrôlleur de de la maison de feue Madame la Dauphine", three stars, "sanglier passant sur une terrasse de sin. au chef d"az. ch de 3 étoiles d'or". --Askedonty (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it might be relevant, but the Coat of arms of the Washington family has three stars (technically known in heraldry as "mullets", meaning spur-wheels). AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Maréchal_de_camp article it says "one of his tasks was of disposing his troops on the battlefield", so after I was a bit puzzled by the irregular shape of the star on this portrait, I'm wondering whether it would not have been intended as a symbolic or schematic representation of that specific task (I can see no other perspective aberration in the picture and particularly none regarding the officer's military order medallion). --Askedonty (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier was also the role one could be commissioned for inspection of fortresses, search for "brigadier", higher ranks were certainly bought too expensive for their owner being bothered with such dull obligations --Askedonty (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(That's considering the forum thread I took the portrait from is not recognizing a two stars insignia prior to 1786 [5])--Askedonty (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems an unrelated coincidence. The coat of arms was recorded as early as the 1300s, and was registered with the king of arms in 1592, long before George was born. Most of the sources I am seeing dates the use of stars to signify general ranks to the 18th century, with one star for a Brigadier general and two stars for a Major general, established as such for the US Army in 1780. I can find no records of the British army using such a system, so I'm not sure where Congress came up with it; it was the system they came up with nonetheless. During the war, Washington was a major general, making him at the same pay grade as other major generals, of which there were a few dozen in the Continental Army, but was granted the extra title of "Commander-in-chief" and was granted a third star for his uniform, despite being at the same official rank as other major generals. After the war (and after his presidency), he was promoted to Lieutenant General by John Adams during the Quasi war, he retained his three stars. --Jayron 32 16:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what makes you think Congress came up with it ? It was the headquarters who had already recommended stripes, or whatever, for distinction of officers, since the first year in existence of the Continental Army, but at the instigation of George Washington. --Askedonty (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery photograph 1887

I've been adding to our article on Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria which includes this photograph of the procession through London. I am hoping that somebody can pinpoint the location. The angle of the roads suggests the junction of Picadilly and Regent Street but I have been unable to identify the colonnaded building (partly obscured by temporary stands). Victoria's account of the procession mentions Piccadilly, Regent Street and Pall Mall, although I don't think she could have gone into Regent Street as it would take her in the wrong direction - it was a roundabout route from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey, but the exact details have eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge From the Graphic, the route was:

Buckingham Palace > Constitution Hill > Piccadilly > Regent Street > Pall Mall East > Cockspur Street > Northumberland Avenue > Embankment > Bridge Road
(returning) Westminster Abbey > Parliament Street > Whitehall > Cockspur Street > Pall Mall > St James's Street > Piccadilly > Constitution Hill

It seems like Regent Street on the outbound stretch was the south section below Piccadilly Circus, running down to Waterloo Place. I am now wondering if that's exactly the bit we're seeing here - where Waterloo Place widens out, and thus explaining why both the near and far lines of people are curving back. commons:File:Waterloo QE3 43.jpg is taken there in the 1890s and the building on the right looks very similar to the one here. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And confirmation - the reporter of the Northern Whig reported that a "magnificent triumphal arch spanned the southern end of Regent Street ... it was surmounted by the Crown and the Royal Standard, underneath being a large medallion portrait of her Majesty, and the words, in large gold letters, 'Victoria our Queen'."

The Globe mentioned "the luxurious stand erected by Messrs Hampton at the corner of Regent-Street", and we can just see the MPTON on the left. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Andrew Gray, I'd forgotten that Regent Street ran south of Piccadilly Circus. You seem to have nailed it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these buildings seem to have been replaced in the early 20th century, but this 1830 view shows the colonnaded building (perhaps by John Nash?) in exactly the position you suggested. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray, please could you post the citation details for the info from The Graphic, so that I can include it in the article; I don't have a britishnewspaperarchive subscription. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry - forgot the metadata was not in the public view! Graphic, p8, 18 June 1887. I accidentally looked up the 1897 route as well; if you'd like to use that too, it's the Reading Mercury, p6, 26 June 1897. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can call this...

Resolved

1990 Conservative Party leadership election -what triggered it

What officially triggered the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election, x number of M.P.s calling for same? Was a confidence vote an option? How many perspective candidates where there, when did nominations close etc.- Bogger (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite explained the situation; "Thatcher brought the annual leadership election forward by a fortnight.[3]" Apparently, the Tories hold their leadership elections annually (or did at the time) and in most cases this is a pro-forma event; I suspect that in most years there is one candidate, the current party leader, and they are likely confirmed by unanimous consent. There had been a challenger the year before, but the election went Thatcher's way easily, however by 1990, Thatcher was in a tighter position, and the Heseltine challenge caused Thatcher to (as party leader) move up the election, hopefully to stem momentum in Heseltine's favor and preserve her job. That's how I read the article, anyways.--Jayron 32 12:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Heseltine. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected. --Jayron 32 18:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The election results are here, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Heseltine were the only candidates in the first round. How refreshing that winning an election was cause for resignation in those high and far-off days. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article references Geoffrey Howe's famous "dead sheep" speech which triggered the whole thing [6], "the greatest parliamentary speech ever" [7]. You can hear this gem here (the main punchline is at 14:48). Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

Bourgogne

Confronting two maps here on Wikipedia showing Burgundian possessions, I realized that there are a few differences (for example in Picardie, Nevers, Rethel, county and duchy of Burgundy). I'm sure both are accurate, they are probably simply referring to two different dates. That's not a problem. What I would like to know is if the second one ("La France en 1477") shows Burgundian territories while Charles the Bold was still alive or instead it depicts how his possessions looked after he was dead. I have no idea if there were territorial changes after his reign. Can you help me? The maps are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png & https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_France_1477-fr.svg 79.13.167.156 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin McEvedy says that France tried to seize his lands after his death and defeat at the battle of Nancy, and did take geographic Burgundy (near modern Switzerland), but Mary of Burgundy saved most of the Netherlands by marrying a Hapsburg. AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Election Day in the USA - Why does the statute use such odd language to set the date?

The Federal Government (USA) sets Election Day as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November". Why would they use such convoluted and unnatural language? Why not use a more direct date, such as "the first Tuesday in November" ... or "the second Tuesday in November"? Is there any rationale behind this? The only thing I can deduce is that "they" didn't want it to land on the first of the month. Why would that be important? Or is there some other reason behind this? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the legal terminology way of specifying the range of calendar dates of an event that always falls on the same day of the week. According to the UK Easter Act 1928, Easter would occur on the "Sunday following the second Saturday in April"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first day of the month might have been avoided because of the little financial flurry (receiving monthly wages, paying monthly rents etc) traditionally associated with the end of one month and the beginning of the next (to some degree still today). AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This explains it well. It has nothing to do with avoiding the first of the month, but rather it was done to harmonize with an earlier law that required the election to be held no sooner than 34 days away from the meeting of the electoral college, which at the time met on the first Wednesday in December. In years where the first Tuesday is November 1, this causes the election day to fall outside the 34-day mandate, so ONLY in years where Tuesday is November 1, election day is on November 8. In all other years, it's the first Tuesday. The "First Tuesday after the First Monday" language makes that happen. Notably, this is now an anachronistic schedule, as the law requiring the 34 days was repealed when the Electoral College meeting was moved to January; as of 1936 the Electoral College no longer even meets as a whole body anymore; but the law setting the date for federal elections has never been changed, so that's the way it goes. It's always on whatever Tuesday falls between November 2-8 inclusive. --Jayron 32 12:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral College in the U.S. never met as a whole body. Rather, the electors of each state held separate meetings, one for each state, going back to the first presidential election under the Constitution. In the original Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 3 begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons ...." This clause was substantially rewritten by the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804), but it still begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective states ...." Furthermore, the electoral college meetings are not in January; rather, "The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct." [8] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did so meet in January from 1887-1936. According to this "In 1887 the date of the Electoral College meeting was moved to the second Monday in January, in years following a presidential election; this wiped out the “within 34-days” issue. In 1936 another date change for the Electoral College occurred, and it’s the one we now abide by: The Electors now meet in their respective states to cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December." As seen Here, (PL 49-90) states that the meeting date was set as the second Monday in January. The date was moved back to December when the start of the Presidential term was moved back to January from March in 1936. I was incorrect about them meeting together, but the dates I cited were accurate. --Jayron 32 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Day on 11/1 also contributed to why. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link, for the All Saints' Day reference: [9]. Thanks, all! Very helpful! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible for the URL to change just by scrolling down without leaving the webpage? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. When I clicked that link that you posted ... this is what I got: [10]. The page is entitled How Does the Electoral College Work?. That page had no mention of All Saints' Day, whatsoever. However, on that page, on the left-hand side, at the top, it says: "Popular on Britannica - 1. Why Are U.S. Elections Held on Tuesdays?" When I clicked on that, it brought me to this page: [11]. That page is entitled Why Are U.S. Elections Held on Tuesdays?. And on that page, they mention All Saints' Day, in the fourth paragraph down. But, I have no idea of how the computer / internet / web does all the "behind-the-scenes" operations. Thanks again! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is done using Java Script. When a user scrolls down a page and page shows a different content (news/story) compared to content on top of page, this technique is used to change the URL in browser address bar. With this, when user selects option to share the content with friend, the URL corresponding to the content being viewed is shared so that friend will directly see the relevant content (instead of having to scroll down many times over to get to right content; and friend may actually give up if relevant content is not visible upfront). manya (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"Ranked choice voting" in Nevada?

What does the Change in the election Law of Nevada mean? Ranked Choice in Primaries or in States election? Sorry, I'm not American, but I want to know. 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:F38B (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most in the U.S. probably have little idea about it, since it only exists in a few jurisdictions. We have a disambig. page Ranked-choice voting... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the possible results? 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:F38B (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your question? --Jayron 32 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 different articles. Which one? 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:F38B (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the United States has predominantly single-winner districts (each member of the House of Representatives is elected separately, for instance), I would guess that instant-runoff voting would be the one you would need to read. If there are any multi-winner elections in Nevada (school boards are a common example in the US), those would be under single transferable vote rules. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries would be contested between all candidates instead of separate primaries for each party. The top five finishers in the primary (regardless of party affiliation) would advance to the general election. In the general election, voters would rank the candidates in order of preference. At least, that's what the NY Times is saying: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-nevada-question-3-establish-open-primaries-and-ranked-choice-voting.html --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is the same system currently in use in Alaska. See 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska which explains it a bit. --Jayron 32 19:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different perspective on Language and Ethnic Identity

In my neck of the woods (Spain) language is almost equal to ethnic identity. Being from the country/region/province implies speaking like all other people who grew up there. Although some people might concentrate more on their regional identity (Catalonia, Galicia, Basque Country for example) than on a national Spanish identity, the rule of language being the heaviest weight on identity still holds true, since mostly also speak their regional language.

Somehow things seem to be more convoluted in other places and times. Ukrainian president, for example, grew up speaking Russian. Being Christian seems to have been a bigger chunk of how Europeans defined themselves. And in Africa things get even murkier.

Is there an area that of sociology, history (or whatever), that studies how these factors (language, race, religion, citizenship...) build an identity, how we divide between us and them, an how their weight varies? 178.156.103.198 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism studies. Xuxl (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ethnic studies, or more broadly Sociology. --Jayron 32 14:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the disciplines, isn't there concrete work analysing comparatively how ethnic identities define themselves? 178.156.103.198 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagined Communites" by Benedict Anderson (ISBN 1-84467-086-4) is a classic book, and not too technical for a non-specialist to understand (though sometimes he uses abstruse delicate metaphors such as "pilgrimage" and hammers them home with relentless repetition until they seem to lose all meaning...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term for the formation of an ethnic group is ethnogenesis, and would include all of the cultural markers that a group identifies with, including (but not limited to), race, language, music, geography, shared mythos, religion, etc. etc. The Wikipedia article on the subject is not great, but it does cite some sources, which maybe will lead you interesting places. In addition, using the word itself may help you in outside research. --Jayron 32 18:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...more broadly Sociology. I'd say anthropology rather than sociology, as long as someone didn't ask me to explain why they are two different subjects. As for how ethnic identities define themselves, the answer has to be 'it depends'. Not least because it is very often fluid and contextual. One generally doesn't have a 'an identity' in the abstract, but rather a whole series of ideas about oneself and one's kin, to be used as and when appropriate. Sometimes these coincide with relatively well-defined external concepts, like 'nationality', but very often they don't. And one needs to be very wary of taking externally-defined 'ethnicities' as the real thing. There are parts of the world where the external 'imaginings' of colonial powers have had serious negative consequences, long after the guys in the pith helmets have gone home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important to note that ethnicity is fuzzy and fluid and always changing. Any one ethnicity can only really be understood in context; as to when and where it existed. Any one defining characteristic of an ethnicity is present in most definitions of most ethnicities, but none are present in all. As noted, language is often tied to most ethnicities, but not always; there are ethnic groups that speak multiple languages within the same ethnic group, for example, though rare it does happen. Because definitions are so fuzzy, academics working in these areas often use the generic phrase "people group" to avoid getting involved in the fuzzy boundaries behind what is an ethnicity, a culture, a nationality, or a citizen; these definitions don't always play together well. --Jayron 32 19:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal de Rohan

During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Period, was he remained loyal to the absolute monarchy and Catholic religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.233.18 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article you linked, it states "he refused to take the oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and went to Ettenheim, in the German part of his diocese. In exile, he spent what wealth remained to him in providing for the poor clergy of his diocese who had been obliged to leave France. On 29 November 1801, he resigned his nominal office as Bishop of Strasbourg and went back to Ettenheim, where he died on 17 February 1803." It seems he was at odds with the revolution, and did not support it or its leaders. It is unclear what his opinion of Louis XVI was specifically, but broadly he does not seem to have been in support of Republicanism. Historically, he would have been refered to as an "Émigré", which while it nominally just means "emigrant" in French, has the additional connotation of one who is a political refugee; in the case of the French Revolution, it pretty much always refers to the enemies of the Revolution who were forced to leave the country for political reasons. French emigration (1789–1815) covers some of the context. It should also be noted, tangientially, that a relatively small number of clergy formally supported the revolution; mostly they were clergy who came up from France's lower classes, Abbé Sieyès is perhaps the most famous of these. As a prince-bishop, the Cardinal de Rohan was distinctly from the nobility, his family had essentially passed the title of the Prince-Bishopric of Strasbourg from uncle to nephew for centuries. There's little reason to suspect he had any love for the revolution, and every reason to believe he was in full support of the Ancien Régime. --Jayron 32 18:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but maybe can you search some other information only to be sure? Thank you.

I thought I did pretty good finding what I could, given that I'm just some random dude doing this for fun. You can't please some people... --Jayron 32 19:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we're here to help but not to do your work for you as the guidelines explain.

That said, have a look at Cult of Reason and Anti-clericalism#Revolution for some good reasons why French priests weren't terribly keen on the Revolution. Both articles also have references that you can read. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Resolved

I apologize if this has been brought up before. Regarding Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999), I'm trying to upload images of all available works related to Marie Bracquemond to Commons. I've finished uploading maybe 80-90% of the works available in museums. The problem is that in the case of this artist, the majority of her nineteenth century works are in private collections. There is, however, one photographer on Flickr who somehow managed to either get access to these exclusive paintings (it's possible because they are a pro, but I'm naturally very skeptical). The photographer then uploaded a large number of them to their Flickr account as copyrighted, with their name and copyright in the Exif. They are not original works or photos, just standard shots of the paintings from somewhere, possibly from private collections, and possibly just from books and catalogs. The images on the site aren't that great, so I wonder if the photographer just took shots of the paintings out of an exhibition catalog or widely published book, which includes most (but not all) of these photos. My guess is that they did just that in some or all of the cases and added their copyright to the Exif. Regardless of how or why, am I allowed to upload these photos of old paintings from Flickr to Commons based on the findings of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which ruled that "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality"? My understanding is that even though these paintings are in private collections, they are still considered to be in the public domain just like those in museums, and I am allowed to upload photographs of them taken by others, with or without a copyright. Any clarification of these confusing issues would be helpful. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask on Commons instead of here. We can't give legal advice, but Commons has established procedures for these situations that rely on Corel and that I believe have been worked out with actual lawyers and the WMF. So I would just do whatever they say is expected. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It’s just that I’ve had a bad experience asking questions on that site before and I was hoping to avoid it. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Try WP:MCQ. Folks familiar with copyright answer questions there and are generally friendly. They may know the answer to your question. RudolfRed (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Elections in the USA - Once elected by one political party, can an elected official change over to the other party?

As a “regular citizen” / civilian, in the USA, I am free to change my voter registration’s party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, etc.) ... basically whenever I feel like doing so. My question deals with elected representatives (Senators, House Rep’s, etc.). Do they have the same liberties that we (regular citizens) have ... or are there any limits? For example ... just as a hypothetical ... let’s say that Jon Ossoff runs as a Democrat and gets elected. At some point later ... a day? a week? a month? whatever ... can he simply change parties to Republican, with the same ease that any other citizen can? Or -- once in office (or, at least, elected) ... are they subject to any special rules? Like, for example, can the National Democrat Party -- or the National Republican Party -- somehow have some standing to object? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they can. But there can be significant political consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief is correct. The U.S. has what political scientists call "weak parties", meaning political parties have less power over elected members. Article: party discipline. This is in contrast to systems such as the Westminster system which generally features "strong parties" that have more power to keep members with the "party line". In the U.S., anyone can throw one's hat into the ring, call themselves a member of X Party, and run for the party nomination for an office, though in the modern practice they have to win a primary election to get the nomination. Similarly it's up to an officeholder what party they want to belong to.

Jim Justice, the current governor of West Virginia, pulled a fun little trick by switching parties to the Democrats, running as their candidate for governor and winning, then switching back to the Republicans after being elected. Arlen Specter is I believe the last person in Congress who switched parties while in office. The one big consequence is, of course, their former party won't support them if they run for re-election and will run a candidate opposing them. And if they're not particularly liked by their new party, they can even lose the party primary and therefore not be nominated by the party for re-election! This happened to Lisa Murkowski, who is one of Alaksa's U.S. Senators. She lost the Republican primary for her seat. However, she then mounted a write-in campaign for re-election as an independent, and actually won! --47.147.118.55 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@47.147.118.55: you forgot Justin Amash; see below. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What it means for an elected legislature to hold a party affiliation is not quite the same as party registration. Party registration is a feature of the election codes of states that hold party primaries, particularly "closed" primaries, regarding who gets to vote in those primaries. That has no necessary relationship to what party a legislator affiliates with in the legislature, though I suppose it's usually the same. There is also no "national" version of this concept; it's entirely state or local.

As for "national" party affiliation, parties generally have national committees, ~~and you can join those if you like, though relatively few people do~~. Update: It looks like I was a little off here. You can join the Libertarian Party, and this used to be called joining the Libertarian National Committee, but apparently no longer is. At a quick search I don't see any way to "join" the national Democratic or Republican Party. Your membership in a party national committee has no necessary relationship to your state party registration (or to your party affiliation in a legislature, if you happen to be a legislator).

If you are a legislator, you generally affiliate with one of the parties. Committee assignments are usually divided up by party, with the party in control of the house getting a majority in every committee, but with others also represented. From that quota (I'm a little shakier on this point, but I think it's true) your party divvies out committee assignments, and if you aren't in good graces with your party you might not get good ones.

All that said, a legislator can "cross the floor" at any time, with no great formality. They just announce that they're now of a different party, or decline to affiliate with any party. Justin Amash was briefly a Libertarian congressman, just by saying so. Bernie Sanders and Angus King say they're independents (and therefore formally are independents) but in practice caucus with the Democrats and get committee assignments as though they were Democrats. How any of these are registered for the purposes of primary elections in their home states, I wouldn't know. --Trovatore (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

32.209.55.38 -- In the state of Texas, you are not entirely free to change your voter registration party affiliation whenever you want. You declare your affiliation by voting in a party's primary (there's no way to indicate your political party on a voter registration form) and for the rest of the political cycle (biennium) you're confined to voting in the primaries and primary run-offs of that party only... AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of American politicians who switched parties in office. WP:WHAAOE. --Jayron 32 12:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also have List of United States senators who switched parties and List of United States representatives who switched parties (not sure if these two duplicate the first one). Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in the Westminster system (in which lie some of the roots of the US system), changing allegiance after being elected is called crossing the floor; the principle being that the people have elected a person (and their personal judgement), rather than a party. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to List of prime ministers who partied in office. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, all. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The process of listing a property on the National Register of Historic Places

Has anyone following the reference desk had any experience listing a property on the National Registry of Historic Places? I own property in a district that was developed by what Wikipedia describes as "the largest land development company in Florida" and I've found there is community support for preservation, so I'm looking into the process of nominating some of the structures in the area for inclusion on the National Register. I'm wondering if there would be any benefit to creating a non-profit organization to lead the effort or getting expert opinions rather than just doing this myself as an individual property owner. It appears a simple process, but I would like to know that I'm doing everything the best way. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/how-to-list-a-property.htm ? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘Healthy origins’ in Communism

In Communist Romania people would be sorted by class background of origin (proletarian or bourgeois). Those of proletarian descent would be deemed ‘of healthy origin’ (literal translation) and would be favoured. How is this designation and phenomenon translated into English? —Biolongvistul (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Referring to Marx's theory of human nature) I would devise some contextually flattering variation of "an active natural being" - of course. Askedonty (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"From good stock" is a semi-equivalent English phrase. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the queen live in seclusion?

Did queen Aliya bint Ali of Iraq live in traditional Islamic seclusion, or did she appear unveiled in public and participate in official functions? I know that her predecessor did live in seclusion, but I am less sure about her: the 1930s was the same time period when the queen of Egypt and the queen of Iran became the first queens of their nations to appear unveiled in public, so perhaps the queen of Iraq did the same? Does anyone know? Her article does not make this clear. It does have a picture of her in modern attire, but that may just show her as she appeared in all female company, so it is not conclusive. It would be interesting to know and relevant to mention in her article. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here she is at a fashion show in Berlin in 1937. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you for this image. But I'm afraid it is still not enough, because it is known that Muslim upper class women in this time period - and even before - could appear unveiled when they visited the West, but would still observe veiled seclusion in their own home country. For example, queen Nazli Sabri of Egypt appeared unveiled and dressed in modern fashion during her official trip to France in the 1920s, but when she returned to Egypt, she still lived in traditional seclusion and was never seen in public. So queen Aliya may in the same fashion have appeared unveiled in Europe, but still not done so in Iraq. Are there any pictures of her unviled in public in Iraq? Because that would solve the question.--Aciram (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

Birth year of Marie Bracquemond

I’m trying to take a short wikibreak, but I can’t help wonder if the birth year for Marie Bracquemond is correct. It’s either 1840 or 1841, but the sources (authority control, etc.) generally use one or the other. The French authority says it is 1841, so I’m inclined to go with that, but I don’t know how to confirm or verify which is correct. Thank you in advance. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of quite specific detail ("Born Marie Anne Caroline Quivoron-Pasquiou on December 1, 1840, in Argenton-en-Landunez near Brest, Brittany, she was the offspring of an unhappy arranged marriage.") in this article makes me think it is based on authentic information. The article states it obtained information from an unpublished biography of the Bracquemonds written by their son. --Lambiam 09:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a better citation in WP: Bouillon, Jean-Paul [in French]; Kane, Elizabeth (1984). "Marie Bracquemond". Woman’s Art Journal. 5 (2): 21–27. (WP:Library) contains much of the same information. fiveby(zero) 18:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that is already cited in the article. Morlaix 1841 below probably comes from Geffroy, Gustave (1919). Oeuvres de Marie Bracquemond. pp. 5–6. fiveby(zero) 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which French authority? It seems that 1840 is correct, but this [site], for example, gives 1841 as the date of birth, but the place of birth (Morlaix) is wrong. On this [genealogy site] The date of birth is 1840, but in the notice (in French) it's 1841- The Centre généalogique du Finistère [[12]] based on the genuine birth certificate, gives: Naissance - 01/12/1840 - Landunvez (Argenton) QUIVORON Marie Anne Caroline fille de Saint Théodore, capitaine au commerce, âgé de 30 ans et de Aline Hyacinthe Marie PASQUIOU, âgée de 20 ans. Témoins : Garo Joseph 46a cordonnier, oncle. Le Hir Gabriel 59a instituteur, bourg de Landunvez, bienveillant. Identifiant CGF de l'acte : N-1840-2910900-51315-07818 - (Relevé 'Etat civil NMD >=1793'). The access to the genealogy site is not free. I got the data from [[13]]. Based on these data, for me no doubt her birth year is 1840. - AldoSyrt (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See authority control for France, for example: [14][15] Fiveby has traced the error to Geffroy 1919, but how does one go about updating the authorities who have the wrong info? Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the "Flag this page" tool in the footer, i would point to "Marie Bracqeumond". {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) If Oxford Art Online were working through WP:Library we could check if Benezit has been updated[16]. fiveby(zero) 01:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess! The Bnf notice states that her birth year is 1841 [17], but the source it refers to is: "Bénézit, 1999 . - The women impressionists : a sourcebook/ Russell T. Clement, Annick Houzé and Christiane Erbolato-Ramsey, 2000", in this latter the birth year is 1840. Trying to correct the error may be not easy because Data.bnf.fr extracts, transforms, and aggregates data from separate databases produced in different formats into a common database in order to link them together and make them interoperable. [18] - AldoSyrt (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind sir or madam! At this point, wouldn’t it make sense for Wikipedia to establish itself as its own authority control for these other sites to use and cross-check if they desire? We can only do so much to control our own accuracy; maybe it’s time these other sites pick up the slack? Apologies, but this is really frustrating. Viriditas (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the various authority control systems are intended for the purpose you are implying. They are about finding information and resources, not providing biographical data. They are "authoritative" within their system. You can look at VIAF 5809326, which shows the records for various major catalogs. With today's persistent identifiers in theory these catalogs might be able to change "Bracquemond, Marie, 1841-1916" to "Bracquemond, Marie, 1840-1916" in their databases; but we don't really know the work required and the drawbacks of doing this in their systems. One VIAF listing is wikidata:Q273552, wikidata's entry for Marie, which is i think intended to provide what you are asking for. But as open data how "authoritative" can it ever be? fiveby(zero)

I agree with your assessment. I don’t really understand how AC is used, and my conception how it should be used is obviously very different. I’m just frustrated that there isn’t a way to easily verify established facts like a simple birth year. Perhaps Wikidata will eventually take up this role and purpose. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So "Landunez" in the quote above is a typo. --Lambiam 05:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. See Landunvez on English Wikipedia and on the French one the reference to Marie Bracquemond People born in Landunvez - AldoSyrt (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Muslim women mayors in India (post 1947)

Came across this deletion discussion of biography article. I suppose post 1990s specially after 2000s there would be vast growth in number of Municipal corporations in India. Can some one help collecting names of Muslim women mayors and respective cities in India (post 1947). And there by facilitate in confirming who would be first Muslim women mayors in India (post 1947) . Bookku (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything found could also be added to List of first women mayors. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

Vice President of the USA - What happens if there is a vacancy?

If Kamala Harris leaves office -- for whatever reason -- who becomes the new VP? And how do they get that job, by what process?

Also, is there the same answer/process -- or a different one -- depending on whether Harris leaves the Administration, period ... versus if she rises to a vacant Presidential position? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the 25th amendment, the president chooses a new VP, who must be confirmed by Congress. That's how Gerald Ford became VP. --174.89.144.126 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How about the second part of my question? Say Biden dies. Harris becomes President. Then what? Harris herself, as the new president, nominates a replacement VP? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The process is the same in both cases; Gerald Ford automatically became President when Nixon resigned, and he picked Nelson Rockefeller as VP. See also Vice President of the United States § Vacancies. --Lambiam 04:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, it was commented on that Nelson Rockefeller's accession to the Vice Presidency was extremely remote from the usual election process -- Gerald Ford hadn't been elected as VP or president, so that Rockefeller was not only not elected, he was appointed by someone who hadn't himself been elected... AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also extremely unusual circumstances, given that Nixon's VP Agnew resigned before Nixon did. A side note, given the extensive financial holdings of the Rockefeller family, a comedian at the time said he disagreed with Nelson merely being vice-president: "Someone who owns something should be president of it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For more complex scenarios, such as "Thanos snaps his fingers and everybody dies", see United States presidential line of succession Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding me of an unrelated constitutional question: if the seas rise and Florida drowns, does it keep its two seats in the Senate? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be up to Congress to decide, and could depend on who, if anyone, survived such a cataclysm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This point memorably featured in Allan Danzig's 1963 SF story 'The Great Nebraska Sea', which described an analagous situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.163.219 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a historical note, before the 25th amendment took effect, the vice-presidency simply remained vacant until the following Inauguration Day. For example, Harry Truman had no vice-president from 1945 until Inauguration Day of 1949, and Andrew Johnson (since he was not reelected in 1868) never had one. If one of them had not completed his term, the line of succession would have determined the new president. --174.89.144.126 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because prior to the 25th amendment, replacing the president on their death was a kind of ad hoc process. Other than the vagueness of the original constitution text, which states only "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President" &c, it was unclear exactly what that meant. The process by which that occured only happened the way it did from the first time it happened, on the death of William Henry Harrison, until the 25th amendment, was because John Tyler, Harrison's VP, just kinda decided that's how it was going to work. When Harrison died, he just started calling himself the President, and while some people objected and said he should only be the "acting President" or some such, Tyler refused that, and just started being the honest-to-God President, and the U.S. just did it that way each time after that. There was no grand plan, no obvious way it was supposed to work, just Tyler and a whole lot of hubris that established a precedent. And it worked that way for well over 100 years, through the deaths of several Presidents, before they finally got around to formalizing the process. --Jayron 32 17:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Sunflowers in a Vase

This painting is in a private collection of an US millionaire from 1996. Are there any information about his identity? -- 09:15, 13 November 2022 82.56.62.96

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_Van_Gogh_-_Three_Sunflowers_F453.jpg --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't give any more information than what is in the OP's question. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article from The Art Newspaper says only "an unidentified private collector", while The Times (of London) says "an unidentified private collector via a New York gallery". [19] Google Books has nothing that I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Holmes: Same as a wikilink: c:File:Vincent Van Gogh - Three Sunflowers F453.jpg. --CiaPan (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP, see the book The Sunflowers Are Mine: The Story of Van Gogh's Masterpiece (2019). It has the full history of the painting (no other source has that) and it will give you some pointers. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne de La Motte

There is a version that she didn't die in London in 1791, but in Russia in 1826. Is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.178.210 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A version of WHAT? Please cite your sources! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is true. She is alive and well, coasting in space in a UFO together with John Fitzgerald Kennedy. --Lambiam 08:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to same historical documents, she disapeared in order to bury her past. Her death in London in 1791 was a sham. Under the name of Comtesse de Gachet, she began a new life in Russia, where she died in 1826. She separated from her husband. Can you search it, and maybe if she was repented for her crimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.44.22 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "historical documents" are entries on a genealogy website, to which any user can add details whether true or fictional – the very definition of an un-reliable source. This has every appearance of being a hoax (which might form the basis for amusing historical fiction). Wikipedia does not conduct or host Original research, but feel free to provide citations to actually Reliable sources if you can find any. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.163.219 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a hoax, debunked here if you can read French. - AldoSyrt (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link does not work for me. But the theory is mentioned in: Vincent Meylan (2016, reprinted 2021), Christie's: The Jewellery Archives Revealed (ISBN 978-1-78884-137-5) p. 44, as follows: "Certain historians and biographers of the nineteenth century propose a different theory. They assert that Jeanne de Valois disappeared in order to bury her past. Her death in London in 1791 may have been a sham. Under the name of Comtesse de Gachet, she began a new life in Russia, where she died in 1826." The book was published by ACC Art Books and should count, under our rules, as a reliable source for the existence of the theory. It does not reveal who these historians and biographers are or where they published this history. --Lambiam 20:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's AldoSyrt's link and at JSTOR 44587743. Here's the pseudonymous account of Louis de Soudak "l'Heroine de l'Affaire du Collier" part 1 part 2 part 3. Is there any way we can issue more green cards to fr:Wikipédia:Oracle editors? fiveby(zero) 21:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, with those sources, you can explain it in detail on her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.161.162 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that according to Louis Hastier (follow "my" link on jstor) the story of Louis de Soudak, who is a novelist not an historian, is not based on any fact, any evidence; it is a compilation of hearsay. Is it worth mentioning it in Wikipedia? Not all information is equal (my opinion)- AldoSyrt (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Can't interpret song lyrics

External link: Lyrics

I'm having a tough time understanding the lyrics of the song That's the Way Love Goes (Johnny Rodriguez song), also recorded by Lefty Frizzell and Merle Haggard. Lines like "you ran with me" and "I love you too" makes me think they are staying together, but, on the other hand it sounds like they are splitting. Are they splitting? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No (or not yet, but see split the lark and split the lark). Obvious only is that the song could be considered inspired by the 1927 song I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover (- leaf clover song lyrics). The second stanza with the rainbow can be assimilated to the second clover leave in "I'm Looking over ...". --Askedonty (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :I couldn't find a reference explaining the songwriter's ~~(Merle Haggard)~~ intended meaning. Often songs have some ambiguity, allowing personal interpretation based on listeners' perspective. Instead of stating my interpretation (which would be an opinion <cough> which is not allowed), I'll point out that there are allusions to luck, chance and serendipity. "What is love?" is a common theme in many forms of art; often as a frame and not answered. Is love an destination or a journey? In this song there is a reference to love as music that God made, and that It's never old, it grows. Does the song have a happy or sad ending, or does it imply something like "let's just see where this journey goes"? --136.56.52.157 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While Haggard made a very successful cover of the song, it was written by Lefty Frizzell and Sanger D. Shafer. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that they are splitting, because he says "Losing makes me sorry", but I'm still not sure. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But after the line about losing, she says "don't worry". So maybe it is meant to be ambiguous. Since this isn't an article, I'd appreciate opinions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "losing" is in reference to all his dreams of luck and success ("searching for that four-leaf clover" & "chasing rainbows") failing. She is telling him that he is enough for her as he is. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... to me,^{[original research?]} this is not a relationship song; it is about the nature of love. Two people fall in love and "make beautiful music together" (for better or worse). Is this serendipity or does God^{[1 John 4:8]} have something to do with it? —136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Breakfast Club considered a propaganda movie?

Is breakfast club considered a propaganda movie?179.134.96.166 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? And for what? One could make the argument that every movie is propaganda for something, even if that was not the film maker’s original intent. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not entirely clear, but I think the OP is referring to the 2006 kerfluffle that journalist Michael Weiss started with this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find one person in the entire history of the world who has thought so, but it has not generally been thought of as a propaganda film. Instead, it fits in to the category of Coming-of-age story or Teen film. --Jayron 32 13:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has definitely been taken to task for various things such as Ally Sheedy 'prettying up' to get a guy and physical/verbal sexual abuse. But is it propaganda? Like almost every mainstream movie ever made, it's part of the general hetero-normative male point of view hegemony, but I'm not aware of criticism that it's any more invested in that than most other movies of the time. You're going to have to clarify what you think it might be propaganda for. Matt Deres (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly propaganda for smoking pot. And it worked; after its re-release one State after another began to relax its anti-cannabis laws, softening the moral backbome of a once Great Nation. Sad. — the only real Donald ✓ 19:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need an emoji that indicates sarcasm drippage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment is funny due to its ahistorical and anachronistic nature. Just Say No and Drug Abuse Resistance Education were at their zenith in 1985, and real cannabis legal reform didn’t occur in the US until a decade later, not because of films in popular culture, but because of medical use. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OP. I grew up with this film. I don’t think it’s a propaganda film per se, but it does very much represent not only the zeitgeist of the 1980s, but also the views, values and perspectives of John Hughes. If you’re interested, look into the interviews with him and the cast for more BTS background on the story. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hope this helps! --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1970s, there was a series of ads called "McDonald's breakfast club with Don McNeill". Now THAT was some propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

Book of poetry to ID

Back in the 1980s (I think) I came across a book of scary poetry that I'd like to re-find and I'm having trouble. I have no idea who the poet was, though I think it was fairly modern. It was a collection of poems, all creepy, and I think it was illustrated. I only recall fragments of different poems, and so far haven't been able to use them to pin it down.

One started with "In the ghostly, ghastly silence of the misty, misty moor / a phosphorescent specter sets about its midnight tour." and then later included lines like "It can hold you and enfold you in such ways you can't endure." Pretty creepy stuff! And you'd think this fragment would be enough to lead me to the book, but no luck so far. Can anyone help? Matt Deres (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelutsky, Jack (1980). The Headless Horseman rides tonight : more poems to trouble your sleep (First ed.). New York, NY: Greenwillow. ISBN 0688117058.

E.g.: "The Spectre on the Moor"

--136.56.52.157 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you! My memory for the verse was actually not too far off. :-) I'm honestly shocked that Google seemed to completely miss large direct quotes. Well, now I can search by the author - thanks again! Matt Deres (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google told me it was Prelutsky, Jack (1976). Nightmares: Poems to Trouble your Sleep. ISBN 0713618612. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Spectre on the Moor" is evidently in both books. (WP won't let me link to videos of readings from each). 136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputin

After his death, during the revolution and Communist period, his wife and their children were remained loyals to the Imperial family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.146.182 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not much is known about his wife and children; they mostly remained in Pokrovskoye, and they basically never saw him again after he left. What we know about his life before showing up in St. Petersburg is mostly what is reported by his daughter and biographer Maria Rasputin, which as the Wikipedia article notes "the veracity of which have been questioned." There's some information about Maria, her life, and that of some of her siblings in the Wikipedia article; that may lead you to more places to research the answers to your questions. --Jayron 32 12:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on education in 1850s England and Wales

I've recently been updated the education section of Victorian era using the pamphlet "Education, Literacy and the Reading Public" from the University of Cambridge (See link:ghn_essay_bln_lloyd3_website.pdf). It includes this paragraph:

However, as late as the 1850s, approximately half of all children in England and Wales attended no school (other than Sunday school). Day schools were not as popular as Sunday schools for working-class children, as they charged fees and operated during the week. Indeed, many working-class parents—especially unskilled workers—were forced through economic need to send their children to work, rather than to school. Moreover, as the average length of attendance was only around three years, even those children who did attend day schools probably did not achieve a high level of educational attainment.

I'm not sure if this means half of all the people who were children at the time weren't at school (i.e including children who'd previously been to school and left) or half of children had never been to school (i.e not including that group). Also, it's not clear whether three years of attendance was the average for all children or just those who went to school. I've gone back and forth on this so think it would be good idea to get a second opinion. Llewee (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Guilds

What type of work did a medieval goldsmith shop do besides gold jewelry? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Goldsmith, especially the first paragraph, and the History section, might be of interest to you. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

Medicare supplemental plan info sources

Anyone know where to find good info about this? It is for my mom, who is at that age. There are a lot of ads on TV but I figure they are all from hucksters and scammers. So I'm looking for something reasonably neutral. She particularly wants hearing aid coverage, and not many plans seem to have that. Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 407: / Line 407: @@
 = November 16 =
+== Medicare supplemental plan info sources ==
+Anyone know where to find good info about this?  It is for my mom, who is at that age.  There are a lot of ads on TV but I figure they are all from hucksters and scammers.  So I'm looking for something reasonably neutral.  She particularly wants hearing aid coverage, and not many plans seem to have that.  Thanks.  [[Special:Contributions/2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22|2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22]] ([[User talk:2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22|talk]]) 03:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:05, 16 November 2022

November 8

Military commanders

Henry Campbell-Bannerman's earldom

US federal interest rate hikes

Origin of George Washington's three star insignia

Mystery photograph 1887

1990 Conservative Party leadership election -what triggered it

November 9

Bourgogne

Election Day in the USA - Why does the statute use such odd language to set the date?

"Ranked choice voting" in Nevada?

Different perspective on Language and Ethnic Identity

Cardinal de Rohan

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

November 10

Elections in the USA - Once elected by one political party, can an elected official change over to the other party?

The process of listing a property on the National Register of Historic Places

‘Healthy origins’ in Communism

Did the queen live in seclusion?

November 11

Birth year of Marie Bracquemond

November 12

Muslim women mayors in India (post 1947)

November 13

Vice President of the USA - What happens if there is a vacancy?

Three Sunflowers in a Vase

Jeanne de La Motte

November 14

Can't interpret song lyrics

Is Breakfast Club considered a propaganda movie?

November 15

Book of poetry to ID

Rasputin

Statistics on education in 1850s England and Wales

Medieval Guilds

November 16

Medicare supplemental plan info sources