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

July 28

$1,000,000 in small bills, or you get your kid back in installments

In films and tv programmes kidnappers often specify "small bills" in their payment demands. What denominations are typically meant? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Up to $20 would be my guess. They would pass unremarked. A $50 or $100 might be noticed, especially back in the day when that was a lot more money than it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't want much smaller if you intend a quick getaway, see? A bag, box or briefcase with a million US ones weighs 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb), plus container. Laundering into loonies would just dig you 6.27 times deeper into the hole. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, July 28, 2019 (UTC)

Shirley a loonie weighs a lot more than 6.27 times an American dollar bill. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't call me Shirley! shoy (reactions) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In Tiny Toon Adventures: Buster Busts Loose!, Shirley the Loon weighs as much as Plucky Duck, who you could call a "greenback". Both use bills, though. Here in the real world, coins just look like gold, but the infoboxes tell it like it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, July 29, 2019 (UTC)

Laundering into loonies? or lugging lots of looted lolly by Luan Liming in Liaoning? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I recall something Woody Allen said in an early standup routine. There was this time he was kidnapped, and the perps notified his parents, who "snapped into action right away; they rented out my room." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I would guess that ransom demands these days are made for something a bit lighter. I guess we could always take a vote on it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I honestly expect that when this trope originally appeared, it meant no large bills, i.e. $500s and $1000s, which would have been phenomenally hard to launder. Possibly it also meant no $100s, but those were denominations you'd see individuals capable of having sometimes (in 1950 the average weekly salary in the US was a little over $60, so it's possible someone who withdrew a lot of savings might have a $100 bill). As to what it means presently, I don't really know. My instinct is $20s, because of how annoying $100s have become to pass (since they attract scrutiny a ransomer might not want). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Between the cliché nature of the expression and the controls the government has on withdrawing sums greater than 10,000 dollars, the average ransom demand may well be different nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In the UK, we have £50 notes, which hardly anyone uses (and some shops even refuse to accept), I think partly because they are too large to commonly be useful, and partly because they are so rare that people are a bit suspicious of them. (They have devalued by about a quarter over my lifetime, but they don't seem to have become notably more common). I would have assumed that this would be a good example of what the OP is talking about - denominations so large that criminals wouldn't use them because they would attract suspicion. Except according to two sources given on that article, they are actually the preferred currency of criminal and tax-evaders - so much so, that people are arguing for their abolition. Iapetus (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bank of England "expects" to issue a new polymer £50 note, featuring an image of Alan Turing, by the end of 2021. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Folks will be pleased to know that ransom money, along with embezzlement and extortion, is tax deductible. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That's only fair, what with income from those illegal activities being taxable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, similarly the vast majority of retailers in the U.S. accept only up to $20 bills. That's what Wehwalt was alluding to in his response. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There can also be concerns about counterfeiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never had a retailer deny a $50 but they look at it closely and pen it and I've only done it after my ATM started offering them in the 2010s. And New York City is expensive, the fuzzy line where ATMs stop offering fifties is probably somewhere between San Fran/NYC/LA/DC and Norfolk. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Many retailers in England and Wales won't even take Scottish money, no matter what the denomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well - it's not legal tender--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well ok, but they're not legal tender even in Scotland. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So it's the Scottish equivalent of Itchy And Scratchy money, except not no refunds? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure Derek Mackay would agree with that analysis. But yes, it’s a bit better than Nor'n Ir'n money. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

UK analogies to Confederate money? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well kinda. Except Bank Charter Act 1844 was the defining moment. And there wasn't a civil war. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Not as such, but there were centuries of bloodshed between Scotland and England before they were unified into Great Britain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Whereas Northern Ireland has always been quite peaceful, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

** cough ** -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... are there any cases where a modern day kidnapper asked for the ransom in bitcoin (or some other e-currency)? Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The answer is yes. Here's a horrifying recent example: CRIMINAL GANG ABDUCTS AND TORTURES CRYPTOCURRENCY TRADERS, DEMANDS MASSIVE BITCOIN RANSOM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In lighter news, it seems a bit of ransomware named RandomLocker is going around releasing its cyberhostages for the absurdly reasonable starting price of ten American dollars (converted to code). Can't paste a link, and don't even feel safe clicking most results, but Google it if you must. Has to be an all-time low in the grand scheme of globally reported extortion, if nothing else. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, July 30, 2019 (UTC)

Probably not as underwhelming as trying to hold the entire world to ransom for ONE MILLION DOLLARS! More seriously though, it could be quite a good plan. At such a low amount, people may be more willing to pay, and less willing to go to the hassle of reporting it to the police or trying to prosecute. But multiply that over many victims, and it could add up to a decent haul. Iapetus (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, someone atop this pyramid is laughing all the way to the bank. All great pyramids are cracked eventually, though. Doesn't make them fall like a house of cards or shatter like a glass ceiling, but they're not going to look so bright in 400 years, now will they? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, July 30, 2019 (UTC)

The point is to get money that will not be noticed and cannot be traced. Thus, sometimes there is a request for used bills, unmarked. Bruno Hauptmann got tripped up by using a gold certificate,which were being actively withdrawn from circulation for enough time before then that the use of one was noticed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly warning - with the new pound coin being unforgeable the art of the coiners has turned to the two pound coin. Do examine very carefully any you may receive in your change. 2A00:23C5:CDAC:6B00:7D82:51B0:48DA:AF8F (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Handy guide here, in case they ask for your £1M ransom in £2 coins. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's good to note what a "large bill" was when the trope became a thing. Prior to 1969 (when they were officially withdrawn from the market) the U.S. had, in circulation, bills as large as $10,000. See Large denominations of United States currency. These notes were legal tender, but also highly noticeable. So, while you could spend a $1000 bill, it raised serious eyebrows. Small denominations (especially 1s and 5s) often get passed without scrutiny, which is why small bills are preferred. No one really looked closely at a single, or even a bunch of singles. --Jayron32 12:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am skeptical whether any retailer (perhaps outside of luxury retailers catering to wealthy clients) would have accepted a $10,000 bill. "Legal tender" means something different than what a lot of people think; it simply means any lender must accept it as payment ("in tender") for a debt, absent an agreement otherwise. (Taxes due are also sometimes included under legal tender laws.) It doesn't mean a seller is required to accept it for purchases. Indeed, many businesses refuse cash altogether (ever bought something online and paid in cash?). --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would think that those large denominations were normally used for business-to-business transactions, if the business owners in question were disinclined to accept checks. According to notes I made when reading John Franch's book Robber Baron: The Life of Charles Tyson Yerkes (ISBN 0-252-03099-0), Yerkes got his start in Chicago public transit when he bought majority control of the North Chicago City Railway Co. The two largest owners in 1885 held 35.7% and 14.6% of the stock and were willing to sell it but only for cash, which Yerkes was able to raise and pay them. The larger block of shares alone cost him $10,700,000! --76.71.6.164 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Very likely true, though many black market transactions were done with large bills; as noted in our article on the subject, one of the impetuses for removing them from circulation was to curb this usage. --Jayron32 17:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Back when Facebook was cool and weed was shady, I often arranged pickups through it and COD was the only plan. Kind of a black market, but kind of a legitimate brokerage. Storekeepers are free to refuse or accept virtually any deal, or even lock potential customers outside, but I'm fairly sure the Post Office has to sell a citizen as many stamps, boxes and envelopes as legal tender can match (money orders top out at $999.99, though, at least in Canada). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, that sounds like quite a pricey deal. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I never used Daz Dollars, Snoop Cents or Bo$$ Bux, just down with the brown once or twice, usually easier being green. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

I have used a debit account to buy a few lids of Snoop's scents since (feat. actual lids!), and yes, they are a bit pricey, next to that classic Facebook flava funk. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

July 29

Northern border of Saudi Arabia

I noticed that under the Geography heading of our article Saudi Arabia (current version permalink), there are two maps with quite different versions of the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Both maps come from Commons: [1][2]. In the first map, there is a "jagged" section in the middle of Saudi Arabia's northern border, with a segment of the border that runs north-south. In the second map, the border is smoother. There is no part shown as going north-south; it essentially runs westnorthwest-eastsoutheast. The jagged section in the first map is typically shown on maps from the twentieth century which include the diamond-shaped neutral zone, e.g. [3]. However, the map I linked to above, currently included in the Saudi Arabia article and entitled File:Saudi Arabia Topography.png, has the jagged section but not the neutral zone. Google Maps, for what that's worth, does not depict the jagged section in the border: [4]. My question is, why is the "jagged section" on older maps and some newer maps, but not in other newer maps? Does it have something to do with the elimination of the Saudi Arabian–Iraqi neutral zone? If so, why does that article not mention it? Similarly, our article Iraq–Saudi Arabia border does not mention what I've referred to as the "jagged section" of Saudi Arabia's northern border, and why it is not shown in most modern maps. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It has apparently been historically unclear where the border actually is between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, with even maps published by national governments being inconsistent. The border was supposed to be set by this 1981 treaty between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but apparently it did not have complete agreement from tribes living along the border, according to this document from the US state department, which includes both versions of the border. The treaty describes what the border is supposed to be and states that official maps have been drawn, but I cannot find them. The state department document refers to the jagged border as the "recognized border", and the straight version as the "de facto border", which is also apparently what the Saudi government uses when it publishes maps. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the border has been inconsistently defined for almost a century. Besides the treaties you note, there is the Uqair Protocol of 1922 which (may have) had a different border, and the 1990-1991 Gulf War also complicated the situation. Part of the issue with the border is there isn't much of an impetus to nail it down; the near that border doesn't have much, if any population or natural resources (see, for example, maps in this article, which show no oil in that area). Given that there's not much (as yet) to be gained by resolving the border in that area, that may explain the inconsistencies in the maps. If oil were discovered near that line, however, I suspect there would be a greater impetus to sort it all out. --Jayron32 11:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

- could also be due to different satellite mapping systems - for example, WGS84 does not line up with GCJ02 - Epinoia (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That would cause slight distortions in the direction and curvature of some lines, but would not cause a straight line to become jagged. Those kinds of distortions are on the order of meters or tens of meters, not the sort of thing that shows up like this. --Jayron32 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the links to those documents, especially the 1986 CIA report: that explains it quite well although it's largely focused on the border within the former Neutral Zone. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

insula

what was the highest insula in Roman history?--87.27.156.88 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably one just before it collapsed... AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Insula Felicles was famous for its height, e.g. [5], [6]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE: 9 storeys, before Augustus introduced a height limit of 20 metres, according to a cited claim in Insula_(building)#Construction. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Stay fit at Insvla Ivpiter! Ninth floors from only 9 silvers a month! Rate table: 8th floor: 10 silvers 1 copper, 7th floor: 11 silvers 2 copper, 6th.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems pretty cheap. Gem fr (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh right, West Empire silvers were much smaller than Bible silvers, I forgot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

USAAF in WWII

I've just been watching George Clooney's adaptation of Catch 22. I'm aware it's meant more as satire than a historical account, but I was wondering

• Did USAAF air crews in Europe during WWII have to fly a set number of missions before they were rotated out?
• If so, how many? and
• Could a local commander arbitrarily increase that number?

Rojomoke (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's an excellent source. Initially there was no rule, then variations were tried such as requiring one year of service or capping number of flying hours. A 30- or 25- (in special circumstances) mission rule was instituted in Nov 1942 in Africa and Dec 1942 in England; there was a different system in the Pacific - the entire doc is worth a read. Yes, individual commanders set the rules. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gödel and food

I ve just read that Kurt Gödel had irracional fear of being poisoned and only ate what his wife prepared, to the point that he died when she became unable to cook for him. Why couldn,t he prepare his own food? 90.165.105.248 (talk)

Per our article, "In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death." That is, he couldn't because he refused to. The source is [7]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the question remains of why he couldn't do it himself. The unfortunately pedestrian answer is that mental health is a complex subject and why people do irrational things is the subject of ongoing study by political scientists, psychologists and the like. But maybe there's a record of someone having suggested an alternate so we could at least hear his response? Matt Deres (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is whether he really couldn't or merely wouldn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

How did he eat before he married? DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Very carefully. He wasn't born with full-blown paranoia; it developed as time went on.[8] Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

His mother's food, I guess? Gem fr (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• He wasn't lacking for food, he was distrustful of food. This had developed to the point of a psychosis, and logic had stopped being applicable to it. His fear was that his food was being poisoned, his remaining security was in his wife: part of hs psychosis was that food which passed through her hands was 'safe', but anything else wasn't. He wouldn't eat in restaurants either, even the commissary at the IAS. If he'd cooked for himself, the food still wouldn't have been 'made safe' by his wife, he'd just be poisoned by the food makers.

Even when younger he was an infamously faddy eater: one of the most plausible explanations is that he may have been a supertaster (as Aaron Swartz was). He was also prone to a variety of health worries and had pretty much no normal interest in food as a pleasure, merely an ascetic one in it as sustenance. In later years he seems to have taken to a diet of baby food, butter and laxatives (the chronic constipation involved might have been more effectively treated by eating something with some fibre, but that wasn't a widespread notion in the '50s). He also had a wide variety of general neuroses, stretching from spiritualism and ghosts through to a fear of refrigerators, stemming from Einstein's invention of an absorption refrigerator, to avoid the leakage risk of a toxic-filled refrigerator reliant on moving mechanical seals. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The refrigerator thing is more rational than many people might think at first glance: a lot of early refrigerators used ammonia as the refrigerant, which could and did kill people if it leaked. Chlorofluorocarbons replaced it in domestic and commercial use because they're non-toxic (unfortunately, they happen to destroy the ozone layer, as we later discovered). (Of course, with any gas that is not oxygen, the gas can still asphyxiate if it displaces oxygen from an enclosed space, but I'm not sure household refrigerators contain enough refrigerant for this to be an issue.) Ammonia is still in wide use as an industrial refrigerant, because it's so efficient that it's worth the expense of leak detection equipment. Story time: my mother has a story that she saved her whole family as a baby because their refrigerator leaked refrigerant at night, and she started crying, which woke up the house and alerted them to the problem. This was the late 1940s in the U.S. She doesn't know if the refrigerator used ammonia. I thought by then it was mostly phased out in U.S. domestic refrigerators, but maybe not. Or, they might have had an old refrigerator (they weren't terribly wealthy). --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A few streets away from where I was a kid there was a large cold store (and ice cream factory). In the 1950s-1960s (I forget which) it had leaked and killed a couple of neighbours. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

How sad, but very “logical” despite the irrationality of it all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Something can be logical but untrue or nonsensical if based on false premises. Logic is only a formal means of connecting premises to conclusions, and something can be logically sound, but still false if the initial premise is not true. --Jayron32 15:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

aka GIGO Gem fr (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 30

Tag on WW2 planes

Hi all, how do you call in English the "tag" painted on WW2 planes to show how many planes they took down? Is there an article about it? Ericdec~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is called a victory mark or a "kill mark". Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Usually 'mission tallies' if they're bombers or support aircraft (counting scheduled missions), or 'kill markings' if they're on a fighter and are counting specific victories. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Different pounds from different parts of the British Isles

I already know vaguely about the difference between the Scottish/NI pounds and the English pounds (the former are issued by banks and the latter by the government, or something like that - affecting their status as legal tender?). But I recently saw an exchange-rate board at a currency exchanger which offered three slightly different exchange rates for GBP, Scottish pound and Northern Irish pound.

What are the economics of this? How can these pounds be exchanged for different amounts, and what has gone into the decision to value them differently? Also, why was the NI pound the strongest, and the GBP the weakest of the three? Given that Scottish and NI pounds are not universally accepted in England (for reasons of familiarity, ie if you don't know what the note looks like you're more at risk of accepting a fraudulent one without realising it, like with the GBP50 note all over the UK and probably also the really big EUR notes in Europe), shouldn't they be *less* valuable?

(And, out of additional curiosity, are there any other currencies that have, I guess, "sub-currencies" the way the pound does? Different US states' dollars, for instance?) Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Check out local currency, complementary currency and links. Not sure it applies, but people with a strong feeling of belonging to a community will favor the money issued by the community over the general money, if both have same nominal value. Gem fr (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a principle that holidaymakers would be noble enough to inconvenience themselves to uphold. Though maybe a Scot about to return home and needing to exchange their leftover local money back *would* sacrifice a few pence (no Scots jokes please) in order to get Scottish money rather than English money to take back with them? Maybe that's the key - but with the rationale being the risk of non-acceptance of an English note in Scotland, rather than abstract national pride. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The legal tender value of all the different pounds is the same, but collectors will pay more than face value for a coin missing from their collection, especially if it is in mint condition. All coins are minted by the Royal Mint in Wales (including the Welsh pound). Scottish notes are usually accepted in northern England where I live, but in the south they are less familiar. Dbfirs 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wales does not have it's own money, I'm afraid, whether notes or coins. The last Welsh banknotes were withdrawn in 1908. (That's about ten past seven in old money). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the Welsh pound coin which was minted in 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000 with the inscription "PLEIDIOL WYF I'M GWLAD". I agree that these are no longer legal tender, though they are still worth exactly a pound at a bank. Dbfirs 15:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a slight tangent but my understanding is that those weren't Welsh in the sense of being issued for use in Wales or anything like that, they just carried Wales-themed "branding" ie the Welshness was purely cosmetic. We see them all the time in the English Midlands. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that they were issued for general circulation. Dbfirs 15:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In simple terms, each of the home nations "takes a turn" in having their national emblems used in the coin design. You ought to see all of the varieties, all the time, in the English Midlands, just like in any other region of the UK. Unless there's something fishy going on. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I remember paying with a "scottish" pound coin in 1984 in Scotland when the Scots still had pound notes. I pointed out that it was a Scottish coin with the motto of the thistle "NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT". They reluctantly accepted it.

I have a pound coin with the inscription "DECUS ET TUTAMEN LACESSIT". It's a fake, of course, and I should have handed it to the police, but I kept it because I appreciated the joke.Dbfirs 16:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My latin knowledge is not great, but I am quite sure "DECUS ET TUTAMEN LACESSIT" is incorrect, if it even means something Gem fr (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't disagree with this on a factual basis (my dad collects coins and happily pays $$$ for, say, Vatican euros because they're rare and almost never used) but it feels wrong as an *explanation* for why a currency exchanger would do this. Coin-collectors' desires don't seem like they'd figure large in such a company's calculations. Though the euro comparison is an interesting one now I think about it; in principle all euros are created (minted?) equal but I think in practice the relative strengths of the eurozone economies may undermine this. I can quite see someone preferring to hold German euros than Greek euros. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that with the impending disintegration of the United Kingdom speculators are betting on NI and Scottish pounds ending up worth more than those of the Banana Republic of Borisland. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that disintegration is far from given, surely if one of those countries splits off then its pound will fall like a stone and probably be swiftly replaced by euros? Both of which would surely produce the opposite effect to what I observed. Also, as with coin-collectors above, I'm not certain that tourist-currency-exchangers and high-finance forex speculators would necessarily have the same goals and do the same things. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it much more likely that the marginally higher price of Scottish and Northern Irish notes just reflects the slightly greater difficulty and cost in obtaining the notes. Dbfirs 15:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah - in fact when you put it like that, the unusual thing is that they bothered to offer them at all. Particularly the NI one, which is even more obscure than the Scottish one. And this was Vilnius, rather than a full-on tourist-trap where you might reasonably expect large numbers of Scots and Northern Irish to be showing up (no disrespect intended to Vilnius here). Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Welsh banknotes have long since gone, I'm sorry to say. We're seen as a bit of a black sheep Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Panamanian Balboa hss a 1-1 link with the US dollar. There are no banknotes and the coins are exactly like US coins but for the designs (except the new one-balboa coins). They will work in US vending machines etc. The US Mint has often struck them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There are no state dollars. Who would want to have to learn 51 $20 bill designs and 51 $10 bill designs and 51 $5 bill etc. anyway? There are state quarters but those are just the regular coin with different backs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify the original point; Coins of the pound sterling are the coinage of the whole United Kingdom, there are no regional coins, but sometimes, heraldic symbols of the various Home Nations have been used but were general issue across the Union. The current One pound (British coin) features a "rose, leek, thistle, and shamrock encircled by a coronet", the floral emblems of all four nations.

However, Banknotes of the pound sterling are regulated by the Bank of England, which despite its name, is the central bank for the whole United Kingdom. In addition, seven retail banks have permission to issue banknotes in the UK, although not in England or Wales, only in Scotland and Northern Ireland, although as our article says: "they are technically not legal tender anywhere in the UK – not even in Scotland or Northern Ireland – as they are in fact promissory notes". Although readily accepted in Scotland and NI, they may be declined by smaller shops in England which don't like the hassle involved in banking them.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming they can actually find a bank any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My guess on this is that the exchange bureau was able to offer better rates on Bank of England notes as they are widely traded, but charged a premium on the thinly-traded Scot and NI notes. Assuming they actually had any.---Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If this is so , don't waste your cash. Bank of England notes are legal tender accepted everywhere in the UK, the others may be declined away from their home turf. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The page on sterling banknotes begs to differ: "In Scotland and Northern Ireland, no banknotes, not even those issued in those countries, are legal tender." Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected , however: "Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay". See Bank of England - What is legal tender. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Exchange bureaux in the United Kingdom are not legally obliged to take any UK bank notes. even though they may not be legal tender. They are all worth exactly the same. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

High street banks will also accept them - not sure about obligation though. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction, apologies for any confusion! Exchange bureaux policies may vary between companies and/or have local differences. The face value of the notes is still the same, however. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They have the familiarity and resources to ensure they will not get stuck with a dud and don't have to worry about merchants refusing them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Although not exactly the same thing, a number of mostly small countries and territories use the U.S. dollar as their own currency, or peg their own currency to it. See article for list. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A recent visit to Guernsey yielded a different kind of pound note. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jersey, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, St Helena and the Falkland Islands also issue currency notes in pounds. I would not advise trying to exchange them outside the place in question. When I went to the Falklands on a cruise ship in 2016, I brought a sum of sterling with me, all in five-pound notes. I didn't mind taking away local coins (they would, in a pinch, likely pass without comment in the UK) but banknotes would have been more than I cared to have.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 31

Has there ever been a full-scale assault rifle battle with nothing to hide behind?

So much of modern gunfighting seems to be about hiding behind cover and concealment, what's it like when it's an empty plain with neither plants nor hills more than a few inches tall? Though I suppose it'd probably be a very poor country to have a full-scale battle with no vehicles or heavy weapons and everyone's just duking it out with assault rifles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pickett's Charge and the Charge of the Light Brigade come to mind, although they probably didn't have AR-15's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Technically ARs aren't assault rifles anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That depends on who you believe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Come on. Encyclopedia here. You are not supposed to spread the silly idea that technical facts are a matter of belief. They are or aren't (I dunno nor care), period. Gem fr (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going by the AR-15 style rifle article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC) [Actually 13:36. The autosign bot failed me.]

So that "Light" in "Light Brigade" in no way could have led to associate AR to Armalite ? --Askedonty (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally, a rifle for an assault was efficient and not an hindrance if it carried a bayonet which could be efficiently used. Assault rifles have to be efficient for storming an entrenchment, which means fire for more than several seconds. --Askedonty (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The AR-15 does not have a burst select, so it is not an assault rifle by the U.S. military definition. But, anyone can make up a definition and apply it however they like. My experience is that most AR-15s have an effective range of about 200 yards, which is well below the cutoff for an assault rifle. So, again, they don't meet the U.S. military definition. 199.164.8.1 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about just one side having no cover, I'm sure that happened constantly during the first world war and during the invasion of Normandy (think Saving Private Ryan or pretty much anything else depicting an attack on enemy fortifications). If you're talking about neither side having cover, I really don't think that's possible without both sides deliberately committing to such an engagement. Otherwise you'd pretty much need both groups to have advanced on an open area and somehow missing that the other group was out in the open and not falling back behind cover themselves (or setting up some kind of ambush). On some level even open fields are going to have changes in elevation that would give opportunities for cover when shooting from the prone position. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes both sides. If Hollywood is right they sometimes did this when it was mostly hand weapons like swords but if you can run faster than them (lighter armor perhaps?) you still had the option of running without being shot forever with AKs while trying to shoot backwards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside the lack of contemporary assault weapons, Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg comes nowhere close to meeting this scenario of having "nothing to hide behind", at least for the Union Army. The Confederate infantry forces were advancing across slightly undulating but mostly open ground, toward higher ground defended by the Union forces. Most of the Union riflemen were protected by a 260 yard long stone wall. They were crowded in four deep with ample ammunition and would pop up to take a shot and drop down safely to reload. As a result, the engagement was a total defeat for the Confederates. The Union forces took about 1500 casualties. The Confederates took over 5,000 casualties and nearly 4,000 of their troops were taken prisoner, out of a force of 12,500, in a one hour period. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, the Light Brigade was attacked by artillery from three directions; not a case of neither side having heavy weapons. --76.71.6.164 (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I honestly don't even see small skirmishes (like at the squad or platoon level) like this happening in the modern era. You'd need utter and complete failures on both sides to wind up running into each other in an open field having no cover within reach. Like I said, it's reasonable to happen when one side is fortified, but why would two hostile forces get out in the open with each other? Side A would see Side B's troops from the as they approached the area, would halt, and then plan an engagement/call in air or artillery support/something other than walk into battle. And if Side A were crazy enough to just walk out there and try to engage Side B, why would Side B just sit there as they approached? And this is presuming everyone's on foot. Nowadays even if you're out in the desert you'll have a vehicle to use as partial cover. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This kind of weapon is recent, and was design precisely because soldiers were taking cover. So it would make no sense to use AR without cover.

Now, some war factions had child soldiers believing they were somehow bulletproof "child+soldier"+bulletproof&source=bl&ots=bInUq0-Jsa&sig=ACfU3U3vSsavPl-AXiqrMsFzWkW0zmaqnw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr4tnNjt_jAhXjyIUKHfOBDRAQ6AEwE3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q="child%20soldier"%20bulletproof&f=false and behave accordingly. So, I guess the Irak-Iran war can qualify as an answer to you question, although I doubt those children were all equipped with guns in this instance.

Gem fr (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Iron Cross and MBE

Garbo, Juan Pujol García, was awarded the Iron Cross and made an MBE during the Second World War. Our article says this made him "one of the few – if not the only one – to receive decorations from both sides" during the War. Can we find anyone else decorated by both sides in this war, and was anyone decorated by both sides in the First World War? (For clarity, I'm not interested for this purpose in the innumerable German princelings who had British decorations prior to the First German War, and then went on to get something from the Kaiser during it. Only those awarded gongs by both sides actually during the conflagration) Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Although Mannerheim's GBE was awarded in 1938 and so wasn't during the Second World War. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The page that gave me his name said he qualified for the First World War, but I don't know the history well enough to know which honours are relevant there - he holds Russia, Swedish and German honours for the period 1914-1918 but it would depend on who Finland was allied with when. For the Second, I also see French and Finnish honours as well as Nazi but am again unsure who was on which side when. If the question only asks for British honours then I agree he doesn't fit the criteria. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't read the article that closely, but this article has stories of several soldiers who fought for both sides during the war. That may provide a starting point for your research. --Jayron32 16:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. if you want to expand beyond the world wars, apparently Rick Jolly holds this distinction for the Falklands conflict, Florence Nightingale for the Franco-Prussian war, and Götz Schlicht for the Cold War.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Help!

My Alerts message, which says 99+, is stuck at red throughout. Sometimes I make it gray by clicking on it and then clicking away from the dialog box that it opens, but whenever I close and then open Wikipedia again, it becomes red again, and there's no easy way to tell whether I get a new alert. Georgia guy (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This message would be better suited at WP:VPT than here. This desk is primarily for finding references related to humanities questions. --Jayron32 16:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to click on each alert one by one in order to clear them all. Why didn't you clear them as they appeared? --Viennese Waltz 19:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I cleared it 4 times; each one took the number down to a smaller number; first to 78, then 53, then 28, then 5. Georgia guy (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Why so freakin' many alerts? Are you constantly getting hacking attempts? In any case, is there a way to disable it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The notification system has existed for a very long time now. I don't think it's particularly surprising that many people could have 99+ alerts from undos, mentions, successful mentions, talk page messages etc etc (depending on what you enabled). I myself had that until very recently. If you click on the icon so the alert box pops out (and you can see what it's about) or even visit the notification page, without explicitly clearing (marking as read or whatever) the alert, it should remove the red alert icon so you can accumulate 99+ even if you are aware of what most of them are about and have checked them out when you considered it necessary. Ditto for notices. Recently there was a bug which meant this did not happen, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#The notification button and [9]. At least for me, actually marking as read all my alerts (and notices) resolved this problem hence why I no longer have 99+ but maybe not all figured it out and someone suggested in that VPT thread it didn't work for them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The OP can adjust Preferences | Notifications to prevent getting stuff they don't want to see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not clear the OP didn't want to see any of these alerts. As per my point, the fact they were not marked as ready at the time doesn't mean they weren't checked out and desired. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the OP will come back here and clarify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agra Pequena

Do we know what Agra Pequena area refers to? [10][11]. Is it the same as Angra Pequena? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost certainly, given the context, though it's odd the same typo would appear twice. Britannica spelled it correctly showing that Angra Pequena was the name used in 1884, as does this news article. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In Portuguese, agra pequena makes no sense, but angra pequena does. 2A00:23C5:CDAD:6500:34F0:5D70:7172:F66A (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The second of @Eddie891:'s links says it's in southeast Africa, but Angra Pequena is in southwest Africa. It just struck me, would Agra Pequena make sense in Spanish? DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In Portuguese angra means "cove" and pequena means "small". The German colonies were in south west Africa. See pt:Angra Pequena. 2A00:23C5:CDAD:6500:34F0:5D70:7172:F66A (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

August 1

Movement of money

The recent thread on "Different pounds from different parts of the British Isles" [I don't seem to be able to link to reference desk threads?] got me wondering if there has been research on the geographic movement of coins and bills. I tried to Google this but only came across money laundering stuff. If an ATM on Oxford Street spits out 100,000 quid on a Monday, do we have any notion of where it will have been distributed a month later? I wonder how much will be still in London, how much will be in Glasgow, and how much will be in Toronto? Hayttom (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• See Where's George? for a project in the US on the movement of individual bills. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a "Canadian Money Tracker", lets you find where certain bills show up, but it's dependent on user reports, so not comprehensive or reliable, more just neat. Also Where's Willy?, apparently. Thanks, Mendaliv. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

In "see also" section of Where's George? there is a link to Currency_bill_tracking#Europe, itself linking to DoshTracker for GBP. Not the most popular, though. Gem fr (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Great-grandparents

Has anyone ever known (or at least lived alongside) all 8 of their great-grandparents? 2001:8003:5C3E:7E00:C59C:2C6A:4438:FD95 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably Yes because many generations of isolated Indigenous peoples such as the Sentinelese have lived in close proximity throughout their lifetimes, with high probability of remembering their ancestors, living and dead. DroneB (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's one example: [12] Mathew5000 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The White Man's Burden

Colleagues such a question, "The White Man's Burden" is a pure notion of Kipling, or was it a official slogan of the British colonialists? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The poem was originally written in 1897, about paternalistic imperialistism ideology in general; Kipling reworked it in 1899 to reflect America's new "burden" after acquiring the Philippines following their 1898 victory in the Spanish–American War.^[13] AFAIK, the term originated with Kipling. 2606:A000:1126:28D:C961:9E02:5182:5AE4 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

check Jules_Ferry#Colonial_expansion

"it is a right for the superior races, because they have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races."

Gem fr (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As a phrase, it predated Kipling by a few decades, the first known use, according to Merriam-Webster is 1865. This source notes that the phrase was already in use before Kipling wrote his poem, though the poem gave it much greater exposure. As a concept (rather than a specific phrase), it is much older, often called Paternalism, though that concept is a bit larger, and covers issues beyond "racial paternalism", which is Kipling's meaning. You can find clear evidence of similar attitudes as Kipling's in writings of people such as Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda over 300 years earlier. --Jayron32 15:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also interesting that ngram results show the spike in print appearances beginning in 1895-6 rather than in 1897, suggesting that perhaps Kipling had seen the phrase before he used it, or was tapping into a Zeitgeist. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

1882: first appearance of phrase in google corpus

1893: 0.0000000303%

1894: 0.0000000303%

1895: 0.0000000980%

1896: 0.0000010809%

1897: 0.0000016296%

1898: 0.0000018399%

1899: 0.0000024012%

1900: 0.0000026124%

If you turn off smoothing there's none whatsoever in 1897, a little in 1898 and a huge spike by 1899. Though the hugest spike of all was 1944 when the kilos of books per "white man's burden" ratio reached 10. You have to tick case insensitive to get that though, most of the usages were uncapitalized. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of first usage, I don’t think the phrase was ever adopted as an “official” slogan. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Idiomatic translation

Hi Folks, Can somebody give me an idiomatic translation of this sentence please. It is in German. It is a quote. Thanks

Ich denke, ich soll Sie vertreten, Herr Kollege, und nun erscheinen Sie selbst? Der Besucher, offensichtlich verblüfft, scheint nicht zu begreifen. Warum ist er so verlegen? Seine Haltung ist ohnehin merkwürdig unsicher, als krümme er sich, hätte Magenschmerzen.

scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this is missing some punctuation - the first sentence looks like direct speech, the rest like a description of the reaction to that. "I was given to understand I should cover for you, and now you are here yourself?" The visitor, obviously stunned, does not seem to grasp the situation. Why is he so embarrassed? He seems insecure, bowed over, as if he had stomach ache. This might be a bit too literal... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz:Suits me. It is really hard to judge. Thanks Stephan.scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. One thing that makes the English version a bit artificial is the present tense - in German, this is not infrequently used in narrations. In English, I think, it is much rarer - narratives there are usually in past tense. Wether you want to do that transfer depends on context and on the purpose of the text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Side note: I agree that it is somewhat uncommon, but the historical present (or "narrative present") is definitely a thing in English. Used judiciously it can bring a sense of vividness to a narration. Use it out of place and it sounds affected.

(The stories of Damon Runyon are written almost entirely in the historical present, including the direct quotes. I think Runyon never uses a past tense verb in all his living days. When I first begin to read them, as a youth, this causes me no little consternation, but before long I find it natural and agreeable.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"... a bit to literal"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Or is that being a bit to pedantic? ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No't atalll. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not my fault that your language uses the exactly same word with two different spellings. That would never happen in rational German *cough*das/dass*cough! Depressingly, I'm still making that error although I'm very much aware of it. And it's even in one of my papers that won a best-paper-award, and apparently slipped by the reviewers there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2

A government of the second eleven

The description of Bonar Law's cabinet as "a government of the second eleven" has been ascribed to both Winston Churchill and Lord Birkenhead. I would like to pin it down. Early citations please! Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the top 5 hits on a Google search show books all saying it was Churchill--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Powell, David (2004). British Politics, 1910-1935: The Crisis of the Party System. Routledge. p. 118. ISBN 978-0415351072., the "second eleven" was Churchill, while Birkenhead, lacking Churchill's skill with the witty one-liners, went for "second class brains". Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ward, Roger (2015). The Chamberlains: Joseph, Austen and Neville 1836-1940. Fonthill Media. p. 60. ISBN 978-1781554470. seems to be alone in ascribing "second eleven" to Birkenhead, as far as Google can tell me. Where and how Churchill made this quip so far eludes me. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those works give a source. Now, the earliest work I can find giving the line to Churchill is A. J. P. Taylor's English History 1914-1945, published in 1965, which also gives the "second-class brains" remark to Birkenhead. A lot of works published since then paraphrase remarkably closely Taylor's words. Max Beaverbrook, who after all knew everybody involved (and was to some extent involved himself), gives the "second eleven" to Birkenhead, in his The Decline and Fall of Lloyd George, published in 1963. In Ball, Stuart (2013). "Ministers". Portrait of a Party: The Conservative Party in Britain 1918-1945. Oxford University Press. p. 415. ISBN 9780199667987. we read "Birkenhead's virulence after the fall of the Coalition confirmed this hostility, and wounding phrases such as the dismissal of Bonar Law's Cabinet as 'the second eleven' were deeply resented[80]". The reference given is "Derby to Younger, 13 November, to Salvidge, 17 November 1922, Derby MSS, 31/8, 8/8". Now I don't have access to the Derby manuscripts, but that seems to me pretty conclusive that it was Birkenhead. What I am looking for are any references to the remark in print before Taylor (1965), and preferably before Beaverbrook (1964) too. My suspicion is that Taylor was caught by a wave of Churchillian Drift, and with his old paymaster the Beaver having died in 1964 there was nobody who cared to correct him. Other writers since have just copied Taylor, almost word for word, and without a citation. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid this may muddy the waters, but I thought of looking in Hansard. The phrase appears once in the relevant time period, but the speaker was Ryland Adkins on 4 Dec 1922. The sentence: "It was a speech as full of Protection as polished and artful English can be—as full of Protection in its own way as the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and now we know, not only from the benches below the Gangway, but from those high in office, in the second eleven, that what informs their mind and inspires their feelings is not the even now limited scope of this Act, but the desire of applying Protection wherever they can." Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't borrowing from someone else who said it outside of Parliament, but it does show Taylor didn't invent the phrase even if the correct speaker remains unclear. It would be grand if anyone here has access to search the Times archives. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Searching google books for the phrase from 1922-1964 brings up one result: Chambers's Encyclopaedia 1959, Volume 5 - Page 296. It's snippet view - hope this link works. The text is "Lloyd George at once resigned, followed by Chamberlain, Birkenhead, Balfour and most of the leading Conservatives, and Bonar Law was obliged to form what Winston Churchill described as 'a government of the second eleven'." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Churchill does use it ("a government of what one might call "the second eleven") in The Gathering Storm, but that was over twenty years after the events - and after the sources given in Stuart Ball. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sort of tangential but what does "second eleven" literally refer to? Like a reserve team in soccer/football? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the reserve team. You might like to read our article on Second XI Championship. Dbfirs 14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah neat...I forgot cricket teams also have 11 players. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

... and I'd forgotten that there was another sport with eleven players on a team! Dbfirs 20:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

August 3

Spanish translation of D. H. Lawrence's The Plumed Serpent

Hello, I'd like to know whether D. H. Lawrence's The Plumed Serpent was translated into Spanish, and if so when the Spanish translation was published and who the translator was. Bibliographic details (or a link to a library record listing them) would be great. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

[14] --Viennese Waltz 11:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful, but that's a 2009 version of the novel. Surely it was published in Spanish before then? Searching the Advanced Book Exchange, the oldest Spanish copy listed was published in 1940. I don't know whether that was the first Spanish edition, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

[15] edit: ah yes, that's the one you found. --Viennese Waltz 11:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You can read the 2009 translation at [16]. 2A00:23C5:CDA6:4900:DCD9:81FA:D378:8463 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact the 2009 translation appears to be a reprint of a 2000 translation. 2A00:23C5:CDA6:4900:DCD9:81FA:D378:8463 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 4

Right to arms and extrajudicial killing

Have US courts or legal experts considered whether the right to keep and bear arms under Second Amendment trumps the issue of lynching-styled extrajudicial killing (or whether the two issues conflict with each other)? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What has the Second Amendment got to do with lynchings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lynching in the United States doesn't even mention the 2nd. And I see no reason why it should.

OTOH one interesting instance of "lynch" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASecond_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution%2FArchive_1

Gem fr (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)