Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

• See List of American politicians who switched parties in office. WP:WHAAOE. --Jayron32 12:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

‘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)

(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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[1]] 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 [[2]]. Based on these data, for me no doubt her birth year is 1840. - AldoSyrt (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

See authority control for France, for example: [3][4] 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)

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[5]. fiveby(zero) 01:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

What a mess! The Bnf notice states that her birth year is 1841 [6], 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. [7] - AldoSyrt (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 17:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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". [8] Google Books has nothing that I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 1part 2part 3. Is there any way we can issue more green cards to fr:Wikipédia:Oracle editors? fiveby(zero) 21:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Was she repented for her past crimes, and was loyal to the Russian tsarist government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.104.100 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

I got to thinking that maybe he is worried about losing her, but she says "don't worry" in response to his "losing makes me sorry". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have to change my mind a bit. I heard the line "Yet you run with me" as ""Yet you ran with me", as it is past tense. The song is going on my playlist. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The line is "Yet you ran with me", but it says nothing about whether she still runs with him, only that she always had. The rest of the song indicates that she is still with him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

They did not have always ran. They ran caught under the rain, and before, the sun was shining but he was throwing horseshoes - a lucky charm - the wrong way for any chance of winning. It's salt in superstition it is advised throwing over one's left shoulder, and the shoes were his own, which he didn't deem classy enough - as they intended going to dance, later in the evening. And he also had intended having a Tequila. --Askedonty (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay... to me, 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)

Now I think I agree.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 13:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 12:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

I did quite a lot of work on our Elementary school (England and Wales) article, which I hope is worth reading. Perhaps your quote is referreing to the Newcastle Commission, which was commissioned in 1858 and reported in 1861. The "Findings" section summerises the results. They are a "snapshot" derived from the census and school records, so I'm not sure if anybody knew whether those children who were not registered at a school had previously been so or not.

The education system at the time depended entirely on either private provision, including the dame schools which were little better than a child-minding service, and charity schools run by the churches, which were eligable for government subsidy but were not monitored and were largely absent from the inner-cities. The commisssion led to a system of oversight where schools only received a subsidy if they reached a set standard in the three Rs and eventually to the Elementary Education Act 1870 and the establishment of secular board schools, but it was not until 1918 that fees for state schooling were finally abolished. We were well behind our competitors in Europe and North America in the provision of basic education. Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Education in England: a history, Derek Gillard (1998) is a good source; in this instance, see Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, which explain the (now rather puzzling) reluctance of the British Government to concern itself with education. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not really that puzzling -- a large number of Church of England people insisted that any national schools funded by the national government should naturally be required to teach the national religion, while many of other religions were loudly vocal about not wanting to pay one farthing in taxes to support schools which they wouldn't want their children to attend. This stalemate lasted decades... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant that it would be puzzling if you didn't know the background - nearly all governments nowadays have education provision as a major priority. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Alansplodge, that's very helpful. In that case, I think I'll leave it as saying that they were not at school rather than had never been to school. As it says the average attendance was three years, I was confused as to whether a lot of older children would have been to school and then left.--Llewee (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cherry, John (1992), Goldsmiths has a preview on Google Books. The introduction says that there was no separate trade of silversmithing, and they also worked in copper; mainly producing tableware and ornaments for wealthy clients or, if based in a monastery, religious artifacts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

Abraham and Sarah relationship

From the article Wife-sister narratives in the Book of Genesis: "Gershon Hepner concludes (...) that it is plausible that the union of Abraham and Sarah was actually incestuous with Sarah being Abraham's half-sister" Is there a competing theory that Abraham was just lying again?

Also, whether it was true or not, wouldn't that make Abimelech (or Pharaoh) even angrier? I know that Pharaohs would marry their own sisters of half-sisters for their "noble blood" beliefs, but I've always thought that the rest of people weren't allowed to do that...85.51.69.5 (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say much about Hepner's theory without knowing whether he says they were half-siblings with the same mother or half-siblings with the same father (two things which can be very different in some cultures).. .AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why we need Hepner, and Abraham is telling the truth in Genesis 20:12. The Bible tell us Sarah's genealogy elsewhere. Our article on Sarah explains things pretty clearly. She's a half sister. They didn't share a father. And the Noachide laws didn't prohibit that level of relationship. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A competing theory is that Abraham and Sarah are fictional characters. If a narrative in which the adventures of fictional characters are described is not explicit about certain facts in the fictional universe inhabited by the characters, one is free to imagine whatever one cares to imagine. So one may imagine that Abram was 60 years of age when he met Sarai, age 16. Or that they were twins. One may likewise imagine that Abraham said what he said not to upset his interlocutor more than he already was.  --Lambiam 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The text answers the question posed about the text. That's the case whether the text literally happened or not. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Article 131 of the Indian constitution.

Article 131 under the Indian constitution does not consider any public sector undertaking or even a Government department as a party to suit acting as on behalf of the government of India although it is a government functioning unit, and that the word "State" in this specific Article actually refers to the respective State governments of the Union of the government of India, so then Under Article 131 what all can be actually considered as party to dispute on behalf of "Government of India" and on behalf of "State government" respectively if not a public sector unit of government when a conflict arises either between a state government with the government of India or between two state governments? why can't a public sector undertaking, which is a working corporation of the government of India be considered as a party to the dispute acting as on behalf of the government of India under the Article 131? Grotesquetruth (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As it says at the top, we don’t offer legal advice. Please consult a law professor. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a question about the rationale for an article in the Constitution of India. It does not ask for advice.  --Lambiam 14:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted the intention of the article. The original court to hear a case is a court that has jurisdiction in the case. A dispute between parties in Kerala will be heard in Kerala; it will not be heard in Uttar Pradesh, because the courts in Uttar Pradesh have no jurisdiction in Kerala. In most cases, one can appeal the original ruling to a High Court, and next file an appeal to the Supreme Court to annul the ruling of the High Court. The Supreme Court is not the original court to hear the case; it is sometimes referred to as the "Court of last resort". However, in some very special cases, the Supreme Court is the original court to hear a case. Article 131 specifies to which cases this applies; the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in the disputes covered by Article 131. Disputes between parties that are not one of the cases covered by Article 131 need to be filed with a lower court.  --Lambiam 15:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nazism

• Roland Freisler: can you search some photos of him along with Hitler and other Nazi leaders (Himmler, Goebbles, etc.) and upload them on commons.wikimedia?
• Heinrich Berger: for the victim of July 20, 1944 plot, can you search for other photos (own, with his family, with Hitler or other Nazis) and upload them on commons.wikimedia?

Thank you very much. -- 10:35, 16 November 2022 82.52.110.64

Such photos would not necessarily automatically be copyright-free... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

We already have some with the main leaders, although it's not easy to search Category:Adolf Hitler, but I found:

• "Nazi Hierarchy, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Hess" (1933 or 1934)
• Adolf Hitler und Gefolge, Martin Bormann, Rudolf Heß, Franz Ritter von Epp, Julius Schaub, Heinrich Himmler (1938)
• Berlin: Lutz Graf von Schwerin-Krosigk, Hanns Kerrl, Bernhard Rust, Philipp Bouhler, Baldur v. Schirach, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring (1938)

I don't think Hitler was much of a team player and it seems that the whole gang didn't appear together too often. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I read somewhere (no reference) that Hitler, after taking the power, only summoned the government at the beginning. After that, he dealt with each minister individually. He would also give different orders to each and let them compete to fulfill them in a Darwinistic way. --Error (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

And they hated each others' guts; the whole setup was disfunctional. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

But there will be a photo of Freisler with Hitler or with Himmler, Goebbels, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.225.133 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There's this one, but it's in copyright. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for a photo bout Freisler with Hitler, and others for Berger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.225.133 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

November 17

Gensan Flying Corps

Misawa Air Base says:

By early 1941, the Gensan Flying Corps trained at Misawa.

What is the the Gensan Flying Corps? I tried googling it, but all the results are from the Misawa Air Base Wikipedia article, or copies and mirrors of that article.

Helian James (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Eleventh Air Fleet 22nd Air Flotilla flying 48 Mitsubishi G3M, 6 Mitsubishi Ki-15, and 36 Mitsubishi A6M Masatake Okumiya; Jiro Horikoshi (1991). Zero!. p. 31-2. They sank Prince of Wales and Repulse (ibid. pp. 67-95) fiveby(zero) 01:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Err, nevermind there is an article Genzan Air Group. fiveby(zero) 01:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added the link to Genzan Air Group in the text mentioned at Miwasa air base article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason for retaining the "Gensan" spelling in this article? As far as I can tell, it's the only instance in Wikipedia of this spelling (in this context) – all other mentions of the Air Group use Genzan. It's not even following the spelling of a cited source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.47.60 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is rendaku and not variant On'yomi reading or romanization so should be 'Genzan' everywhere? fiveby(zero) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In 2023, who will be the most liberal Republicans in the US House of Representatives?

In the 2021-2022 US Senate, Joe Manchin had an extraordinary amount of amount of power because the Democrats only held the Senate by the narrowest of margins and he is by far the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. If Manchin idn't like a measure, that measure would not pass.

So, if we can expect the same phenomenon in the House next year because this time Republicans will hold only the narrowest majority, who will be the Joe Manchins of the House--i.e., the most liberal Republicans who the GOP caucus will need to bring on board in order to get anything done. Just looking for a few names we should keep our eye on.

And I get that these days there are arguably no truly "liberal" Republicans, I am just speaking in relative terms. 2600:4040:9147:3700:9C00:E575:16CF:7D3 (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Playing around with voteview, which my understanding is ranks ideologies based on how frequently people vote with their party, gives us Brian Fitzpatrick and Chris Smith, both of whom were re-elected. Some others were not re-elected. John Katko, for instance, did not run and was replaced by Brandon Williams, though it remains to be seen how liberal Williams will vote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg recently wrote about the "Manchin of the house" moderates and highlighted Marc Molinaro who flipped a district as promising to "leverage" his power as a moderate. Another flipped districts of note is that represented by Mike Lawler. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"the most liberal Republicans who the GOP caucus will need to bring on board in order to get anything done." That is not a thing, afaict. The GOP has much more effective party discipline than the Dems have. Look up the term "rotating villain". Manchin is a classic example, but it is mostly a Dem phenomenon. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)