Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:07, 27 May 2019

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

May 20

British Empire

Please would you assist, during the height of the British Empire, and to narrow the scope, lets say just during the Victorian era, to what side of the political spectrum did the vote and government fall? I understand from research that the current political parties were not in existence. I understand too that there was a vote every 4 years or so and that the governing party may have changed to one run by the opposition but the information I find doesn't show which party had which lead, right or left. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whigs (British political party) and Tories (British political party)

Pretty sure you must not read those as "left" or "right" in the modern sense, but just see for yourself

also Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

Gem fr (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There's a lot of relevant information in our article List of United Kingdom general elections. Important things to note are the change in the number of eligible electors over time and the removal of rotten boroughs, where several MPs were elected by a handful of voters. Of course the Whigs were not the same as the Liberal Party (UK), let alone the current Liberal Democrats (UK). Mikenorton (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in the spectrum of the day, the “center-left” predominated... however, what constituted the spectrum of “left” and “right” in those days was very different from what it is today. Ideas that are mainstream today were quite radical back then. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

81.131.40.58 -- as hinted at by Gem_fr above, during parts of the Victorian period, advocates of the rights of factory workers were to be found among the Tory party. Some, such as Michael Thomas Sadler, Richard Oastler, and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, were completely sincere, while others did it to annoy the Whigs (who were aligned with factory owners)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a bit misleading to try to draw parallels between 19th century and modern politics. Gladstonian liberalism espoused "...limited government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets... self-help and freedom of choice. Gladstonian liberalism also emphasised free trade, [and] little government intervention in the economy...", which reads rather like a modern Conservative manifesto. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least early in the Victorian period, large rural landowners were influential in the Tory party, while factory owners and big merchants were influential in the Whig party. Whigs were usually more open to change and "reform" than Tories were, but the kinds of reform that got passed with Whig support were often favorable to the interests of factory owners and big merchants... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because in modern terms, in Anglophone politics, BOTH modern Conservative (center-right) and Liberal (center-left) traditions grew out of classical liberalism. Modern terms like neoconservatism and neoliberalism are often used by actual political scientists to describe overlapping political philosophies, often shared by the same people. People like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are often described using both terms. It should be noted that in U.S. popular press, the term "liberal" is used in place of "leftist", but in the traditional sense even the Republican Party is a liberal political party, though it is decidedly NOT a "leftist" party by any stretch. Liberalism usually means a belief in small government and market economy, what is commonly called in the U.S. libertarianism, but both parties largely espouse some version of it, with the Republicans favoring economic libertarianism and Democrats favoring social libertarianism, but both being basically liberal parties in the "classical liberalism" sense. Even in Victorian times in the UK, the major political divides were between which kind of Liberalism; it was not seriously considered that non-liberal ideas like monarchism or absolutism or authoritarianism were viable political philosophies in the Anglophone tradition. During the long 17th century, over the course of things like the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, liberalism became the almost inevitable political philosophy of Britain and America (see also Whig history). The most important thing to remember, especially in American political discourse, is that the term "liberal" is applied in a very different sense than actual political scientists would use it. All modern American and British politics is essentially liberal in nature, though it varies in which side (right or left) it falls on. --Jayron 32 12:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name of an architectural element

Does someone know how to call the iron "gazebo like" structure on the top of the roof?--JotaCartas (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest architectural term I can find may be Cresting (architecture), though this looks rather large for that. Still looking. --Jayron 32 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know its term of art, but it also functions as a viewpoint, accessible from the roof. See this picture taken from on top of the roof (The address is Rua de Alexandre Braga 24 in Porto, by the way, should that help someone find more info on a possible term). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then it is a type of Belvedere (structure), which is defined by purpose, not design; a belvedere is any design element whose purpose is to give someone a beautiful view. --Jayron 32 16:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Belvedere looks good to me. In Commons will be "Category:Belvederes (roof appendages)" --JotaCartas (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be an aviary? Widow's walk also looks interesting. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an aviary, it's not now, as it lacks any mesh to confine the birds (as is easily seen in the best resolution). Also, aviaries are usually placed where people can readily see the birds, whereas this is rather inaccessible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a Cupola? (It seems to have the same function, but none of the examples on that page look like this one)

I think you could call the domed structure supporting it a cupola: "A cupola is a small tower or dome-like feature projecting from the top of a roof" (What is a Cupols?. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't look intended to only present an enjoyable view. It's too small, uncomfortable, unprotected from wind, no seating, etc. The stairway going up to it (if it's not a ladder) must be pretty narrow. It might be more of a lookout tower since it's at the highest possible part of the building and built for use by someone who is standing up. Regarding aviaries, I thought there was a type where the birds aren't confined, but they treat it as home, there is bird seed there, etc. Maybe it's not built for that either. Is there a way to ask whoever takes care of the building? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This guide to buildings in Porto simply describes it (no.57) as a "beautiful viewpoint in forged iron". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Architectural ironwork" gets lots of Google results. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Porto City Hall, it is a commercial/office building, built in 1929. The structure in question is in wrought iron, and beyond the decorative function serves as an observation deck. Does not seem to have served as bird cage. To me, the best name so far is "belvedere" but still open to other opinions. Thank you all for your collaboration. --JotaCartas (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

What percentage of US Hispanics are either illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants?

What percentage of US Hispanics are either illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants? Do we have any data and/or estimates for this? Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"descendant of" looks pretty slippery slope, would trigger some sort of quarters of nobility debate: Does it count if you had some illegal not even hispanic great-great-grand-mother while all other ancestors are legal hispanics (just illustrative rhetorical question, do not try to answer)?

anyway, Illegal immigrant population of the United States is obviously the place to check. It states that roughly 3/4 of illegals are from hispanic countries (chiefly Mexico), that illegals are roughly 11 M, so illegal hispanics would be 8-9 M

while Demography of the United States indicates a 54 M hispanic population (not sure it include, or fully include, illegals) Gem fr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many of these are children or grandchildren of illegal immigrants, though? That would be a good benchmark to measure this since it would mean that at least one quarter of one's ancestry is of illegal immigrant descent.Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, this would heavily depend on your definition: "my ancestor was illegal at some point in his life" is not the same as "my ancestor was illegal when he got children here". Besides, I am not sure that the sex ratio and the birth rate are the same for illegals and legals; actually pretty sure they are different. Most people are more prone to have children when in a legal, stable situation; and illegals tend to return home after some time, unless the finally get authorization to stay, so I expect a significantly lower proportion. Gem fr (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In any case that hints at a 15-20% of illegals among hispanics. Gem fr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The figure would be higher if US-born children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants were included, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you add a different category, you get a higher total. Census bureau looks like the place to check for more on this. Gem fr (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- before WW2 (and especially before the 1910-1920 Mexican revolution and the 1924 act), there often wasn't a lot of formality over long segments of the US-Mexico border. People often drifted across without going through immigration formalities, and when U.S. authorities sporadically cracked down and deported people back to Mexico, they often didn't pay too much attention to whether they were deporting illegal immigrants or U.S. citizens... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could the US citizens get back in later on? Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a recent news article about border informalities in remote regions even today: [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "illegal immigration"? Immigration was handled quite differently at different points in history. It would be possible for a person to enter the United States in a legal manner in 1830, but for that same mode of entry to be illegal in 2019. Not to mention the question of whether the movement of non-Native American peoples into the Americas could be described as legal or illegal. Or even immigration. Does conquest and colonization count as immigration? --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean illegal relative to the time. In other words, if one came here illegally, or if one came here legally but overstayed one's visa and then became illegal, then this would count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of questionable relevance. Arguably, nearly all Europeans came to the Americas (or at least certain parts of it) against the will of the native inhabitants - some of which had a formal system of laws. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha -- the status of those who were in the territories transferred from Mexico to the U.S. in 1848 was regulated by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). The territories conquered by the U.S. from Mexico were rather sparsely populated by non-Indian Mexicans at the time, except in a few local areas (mainly northern New Mexico and San Antonio, Texas). AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what made the Mexican Cession so attractive to the US; specifically, it was extremely easy for the US to flood this territory with US settlers. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Has Russia ever considered moving its capital elsewhere (excluding in times of war-related emergencies)?

Other than moving its capital to St. Petersburg and then back to Moscow, has Russia ever considered moving its capital elsewhere (excluding in times of war-related emergencies--such as during WWII, when Stalin considered moving the Russian capital to Kuybyshev (now Samara) if Moscow would have fallen to the Nazis)? If so, to where?

I seem to recall that there was some speculation that Russia could move its capital to Constantinople in the event of a Russian conquest of that city, but I'm not sure if such a move was ever actually considered by the Russian government itself.

Any thoughts on my question here? Futurist110 (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that any cities OTHER than Moscow or Saint Petersburg have been ever considered as capitals. If you look at the history of Russia, it is understandable why only those two cities were capitals. Russia, historically, first grew out of the Grand Duchy of Moscow (Muscovy), Ivan the Great was the first Grand Duke of Moscow to unite the several disparate petty states under one ruler, and his grandson Ivan the Terrible was the one who changed the title from Grand Duke of Moscow to Tsar of All of the Rus' in 1547. The title changed to Emperor of all Russia by Peter the Great in 1721; it was Peter who moved the capital to Saint Petersburg. Peter's change of title AND moving his capital was all a part of his Westernization of the Russian State and Russian Society, attempting to transform Russia from (what was then seen) as an exotic, backwards, oriental state into a modern, advanced, European state. The Capital was returned to Moscow only after the October Revolution (the short-lived Russian Provisional Government under Georgy Lvov and Alexander Kerensky was based in Saint Petersburg); the Bolsheviks did so because Saint Petersburg was the city of the Royalty and their Bourgeoisie puppets; Moscow was the People's city. The only other city you might consider is Kiev, which had been the capital of what is often considered the first Russian state, the Kievan Rus'. But calling the Kievan Rus' "Russia" is about as inaccurate as calling the Roman Empire "Italy". --Jayron 32 11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some information at Why did Russia pass up on two different chances to take Constantinople?. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Voltaire hoped that Russia would capture Constantinople in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) and move its capital there. In Age of Anger, Pankaj Mishra writes: "Envisaging conquered Constantinople as the new capital of the Russian Empire, Voltaire asked 'your majesty for permission to come and place myself at her feet' as she sat on 'Mustapha's throne' in her new court on the Bosporus." In the event, Russia failed to take Constantinople. Mishra does not claim that Catherine herself planned to relocate the capital there (had she captured it), only that Voltaire wished it. Lfh (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deal with Constantinople and Catherine, though, was not that Catherine wanted to make Constantinople the Russian capital; she wanted to make Constantinople the capital of a new Greek puppet state. She wanted a Greek Constantinople, ruled by her son; Saint Petersburg would still have been the Russian Capital. --Jayron 32 14:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In context of the current conflict, Kiev is sometimes claimed as an ancient Russian capital, by way of Kievan Rus'. I don't know enough to follow the argument beyond (or even to) what our article says. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution

Is this plastic in the water? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Restaurant+Jeane/@3.6050528,125.4932681,1524m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x305a71a2bdeee5fd:0xe8d3e2bd15fe3719!2sSimilan+Islands!3b1!8m2!3d8.6578626!4d97.6466734!3m4!1s0x0:0x5acd9240b89e4faa!8m2!3d3.6119098!4d125.4968382

Thanks 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say from that angle. It could just be spume (sea foam), or even just "choppiness" caused by ocean waves. Without a closer view, it is hard to determine the cause of the whiteness in the satellite view. While notable and widely-reported examples of large, ocean-going plastic deposits are well documented, the scope of the one you showed is particularly large, and absent any other evidence, I would give equal possibility that it is some other explanation, though I would not entirely discount plastic as a possibility.--Jayron 32 11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious to me that this is NOT plastic. However, I would be very surprised if there were no plastic is this spume or algal bloom or whatever: when you zoom in, you see colored point more consistent with some plastic garbage than this white-grey (indeed the very color of spume I am familiar with). Gem fr (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you drop in to street view, you can get pretty clear close-ups of the water; I'm not really seeing much in the way of plastic - and certainly not to the extent suggested by the overhead view. The pictures were not taken at the same time, of course. Matt Deres (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identify these items

Is anyone able to identify any of the items on the wall here. https://www.google.com/maps/place/%E5%A1%94%E9%81%93%E6%96%AF%E8%A5%BF%E9%A4%90%E5%8E%85/@45.774737,126.6187385,3a,75y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNydgoctjdCUmg4zTLHunn_zK2PBmTjQUf6BeF4!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNydgoctjdCUmg4zTLHunn_zK2PBmTjQUf6BeF4%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4000!8i3000!4m5!3m4!1s0x5e438015aa1d3e27:0xd2999381a7b3543!8m2!3d45.7747447!4d126.6187942

Thanks 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the documents pinned in the display cases? It's going to be hard to identify them without being able to see the writing (which is in Chinese, to boot). The machine displayed is an early phonograph, but I don't know the model. Matt Deres (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The framed document on the wall on the left looks like an invoice, dated to 1944. I love that lamp on the right. Also, you can see the photographer's reflection in the mirror. ;) -- œ^™ 07:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy

I am posting here to request that someone should write an article by that name. There are many Lucies here but the one I am interested in is not mentioned in Wikipedia as far as I know. The book I am reading now "Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict 1941-45" mentions an "entity" ?? called Lucy that supplied Stalin with a very accurate information about the German intentions and plans during the dark days of WWII. This person or a group seemed to have a direct access to the most inner circles of the German General staff. I understand the Russians somehow had no idea about the identity of this source and the book says that Lucy's identity has never been established, however after a certain period of mistrust, the Russian military planners, Stalin, Zhukov, made their moves according to the Lucy's instructions. I wonder if there is more information somewhere and it can be made a subject of a new article in Wikipedia. Thanks AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Roessler, a German spy, apparently had the codename "Lucy". There's something about him here, if you read German. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It is a totally new page. Very interesting. 107.191.0.241 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AboutFace 22, we do have an article! Find it at Lucy spy ring. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. It is a fascinating episode of history. AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "Lucy spy ring" to the "See also" section of our Lucy disambiguation page. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It got reverted on 25th May [2] LongHairedFop (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

Overhanging walls in the Middle Ages

Good morning. Was medieval architecture advanced enough for "overhanging" walls similar to the structure we see in this picture, but taller and made of stone?--Leptictidium (mt) 07:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, but not necessary. It was standard in that time to use pikes to form slant wall barricades. Pike walls continued all the way into the 1600s. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like, consoles or even Leaning Tower of Pisa? Gem fr (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain they didn't intend for the tower to lean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

evidence are they didn't at start, indeed, and stopped building because of that. However, IFAIK when they resumed construction, it was no longer a bug, but a feature Gem fr (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They could build bartizans, if that fits the description. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also jettying and machicolation. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

The Song of Bernadette - "We have religious, not priests"

In the 1943 film The Song of Bernadette, there's a scene where Bernadette (Jennifer Jones) transmits a request from The Lady to her confessor, Father Peyramale (Charles Bickford). The request was along the lines of requiring "the priests" to do something or other (the detail isn't important). On hearing this, Peyramale countered with words to the effect of "That proves your Lady is a fraud. The Catholic Church has religious, it does not have priests".

That always stopped me in my tracks. The church does indeed have religious (nuns, brothers, etc), but it most certainly also has priests, and the higher grades thereof (bishops and archbishops). Peyramale himself was a priest.

So, was this dialogue in Franz Werfel's original book, or did the screenwriters take a liberty, and if so, why? If Werfel wrote it, what point was he trying to make? Or were these words actually spoken by Peyramale, and has something been lost in translation?-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the original book, the lady also asks Bernadette "Gehen Sie bitte zu den Priestern und sagen Sie ihnen, daß man hier eine Kapelle erbauen soll." ("Please go to the priests and tell them that one should build a chapel here")

When Bernadette repeats the words to Peyramale, he responds "Priester? Was heißt das? Deine Dame scheint eine ausgemachte Heidin zu sein. Auch die Kannibalen haben Priester. Wir Katholiken haben Geistliche, die jeder einen bestimmten Titel führen ..." ("Priests? What does that mean? Your Lady appears to be an outright heathen. The cannibals, too, have priests. We Catholics have clerics, each of whom bears a certain title ...")

When Bernadette repeats that the Lady had indeed said "Priester", Peyramale 'thunders' that she's barking up the wrong tree. Later on he tells Bernadette to deliver a message back to the Lady in which he refers to himself as "Pfarrer von Lourdes" ("Parish Priest of Lourdes" would be one possible translation).

I can't answer your actual question well, but those are the original words in Werfel's book. I guess one point he's making is that the Lady having referred to a vague group of "priests" (in the plural) showed ignorance or disrespect (he's annoyed with her anyway and the last part of the message Bernadette is to pass back to the Lady is a request that she leave him alone, once and for all.) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in - quite shoddy - translation. The word "geistlich" can mean spiritual (at a pinch, even religious), but in this dialogue it is used as a noun (der Geistliche) and denotes a cleric.

It is an example of an adjective + noun phrase where the noun gets dropped in time. From "a spiritual advisor" to "a spiritual". Probably a special case of nominal ellipsis.

I would have thought that in the Hollywood of this era there would have been hundreds of native German speakers to pick up on this nonsense. As you seem to have been somewhat confused by the term in a number of viewings, I assume that you recall the dialogue correctly. But then again, maybe it is just the Down Under synchronisation? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1943, how many people would have been eager to show off an idiomatic knowledge of German? Wnt (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just from Casablanca (film), 1942:

Michael Curtiz, Peter Lorre, Paul Henreid, Max Steiner

If eager or not, I would not know. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The movie people might have started with an English translation of the book. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if our Religious (Western Christianity) article helps here. It can be a noun in English, although a religious is not the same as a priest. Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Public domain year for "The Fox and the Hound"

The article Public domain in the United States says that as long as it's not 2073, works will enter the public domain at the start of the year of their 96th birthday. But starting that year, a different rule will be followed. Using this rule, what will be the public domain year of the 1981 movie The Fox and the Hound?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a work of corporate authorship, it should still be 95 years after publication (so 2076 in that case). If the "creators" retained their copyrights it would be 70 years after the death of the last surviving creator. Handy chart: [3] Rmhermen (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 2077, per careful reading of the rule on when copyright expires. Georgia guy (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

decendants of Ceasar or other aristocrats

Is there anyone living today who can accurately trace their lineage to any of the Ceasars or other notable Roman aristocrats? If so, are they still part of the cultural elite or just "commoners?"142.46.150.122 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 :As a work of corporate authorship, it should still be 95 years after publication (so 2076 in that case). If the "creators" retained their copyrights it would be 70 years after the death of the last surviving creator. Handy chart: [https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain] [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 ::Actually 2077, per careful reading of the rule on when copyright expires. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 10:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
+== decendants of Ceasar or other aristocrats ==
+Is there anyone living today who can accurately trace their lineage to any of the Ceasars or other notable Roman aristocrats? If so, are they still part of the cultural elite or just "commoners?"[[Special:Contributions/142.46.150.122|142.46.150.122]] ([[User talk:142.46.150.122|talk]]) 17:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)