Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 10

Gee, Officer Krupke

I looked up the song mentioned by User:AnonMoos in the thread above. What does "My Grandma pushes tea" mean? Read literally, it doesn't sound like a hallmark of a disadvantaged upbringing like Father being a bastard, Ma an S.O.B or Grandpa always being plastered. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [1] book, "pushing tea" was slang for "selling marijuana". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Mama Mama Mama, where did you hide my tea? DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recall one time when Nipsey Russell was a panelist on a game show, and somehow the subject of teapots came up. He commented, "In my neighborhood, 'tea' and 'pot' were the same thing!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

Conservative judges suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race

trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/politics/supreme-court-south-carolina-nancy-mace-republicans-gerrymandering?cid=external-feeds_iluminar_msn 174.22.201.202 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question there? AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is 42. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Gerrymandering. 2A02:C7B:113:1E00:B570:619:82AB:4313 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

regarding Borj El-Kastilia, Djerba

I need references (literature, articles) regarding this borj (castle in Arabic), building it & its historic background (main interest). It looks there's very little around (web), and some experts are welcome here. בנצי (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The French wikipedia has a reference (published 1868):

Un des principaux officiers des rois d’Aragon et de Sicile était l’amiral Roger dell’Oria (ou de Loria), qui ... fit de nombreuses tentatives contre l’Afrique. Dans l’automne de l’année 1284, selon Ibn-Khaldoun et l’auteur de la Farsïade, en 1289, selon le cheïkh Bou-Ras, il vint prendre possession de l’île de Djerba, toujours en état de révolte contre l’autorité hafside et qu’il enleva au cheïkh des Nekkariens Ikhelef-ben-Moghar. Il fit de cette île une petite principauté dont il fut le chef, sous la suzeraineté du Saint-siége, et y bâtit un château fortifié où il laissa garnison. (Gist is: admiral Roger dell'Oria (also spelled de Loria) of Aragon and Sicily seized Djerba in either 1284 or 1289 (sources vary) and built a fortified castle.)

However, you will note that this reference doesn't make the connection that this is the same castle today called Borj/Bordj el Kastil, so there is some OR in the French wiki article. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you might also pursue the references in Roger of Lauria and its French, Italian, Spanish and Catalan versions, which all have difference references. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal museums and copyright law (U.S.)

Hi y'all, I'm looking for some sources or background on federal American museums/cultural institutions and the application of American copyright law. Rather dry topic, but hopefully someone knows something!
I'm wondering whether creative (i.e., formally copyrightable) products of federal American museums are legally in the public domain. Specifically, I'm looking for information on how American copyright law - which normally puts any work made by federal employees as a part of their federal duties into the public domain - treats the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution, two pretty unique government institutions in their legal relationship to the federal government. The Smithsonian operates under a trust, with only some employees categorized as federal government workers, and the National Gallery has a pretty similar legal set-up; there is more documentation on the Smithsonian side, with extensive established precedent on the ways laws concerning federal oversight, taxation, etc., apply to the institution, including the application of copyright claims against the Smithsonian. But I've been searching high and low for details on how copyright law has been applied to products of these institutions, and I can't find much solid documentation of their copyright claims being tested in court or written about.
I ask this in the context of looking for freely licensed images of artists for Commons and use on Wikipedia. The National Gallery and Smithsonian regularly publish images, videos, and promotional content about artists, created by museum employees, that would seemingly be in the public domain, depending on the way copyright law is applied. The National Gallery, for example, regularly publishes videos of artist talks, including this video of a talk by artist Christina Fernandez: link (first video on page). The video ends with a copyright marking: "© 2023, Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art." Obviously much of the content of the video (e.g., high-quality representations of Fernandez' work, the text/audio of her lecture, copyrighted music featured, etc.) are not in the public domain, no matter what. But, if the National Gallery were treated like a regular federal agency in regards to copyright law, this video would be fair game to use as a source for a freely licensed image of the artist.
Normally I take cultural institutions at their word when they claim copyright over material, but I've run into several examples recently of institutions blurring the lines to avoid legally public domain material from being created or used without their permission (Dia Art Foundation and their copyright claims over Spiral Jetty, a fundamentally non-copyrightable object, come to mind). With that as recent context, I wonder if the National Gallery and Smithsonian, when applying their copyright markings to creative works they release, are simply hedging their bets that people will assume the copyright is valid. Or does the trust instrumentality that legally forms these institutions truly exempt them from the normal application of copyright law to federal government works?
I asked at the Copyright Village Pump, was told just to assume their works are validly copyrighted, or to come here for more background. Does anyone have any information or sourcing on this for more research? Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking the Smithsonian itself? They would probably know the relevant laws better than we do. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No (substantive) responses. I've tried multiple times, multiple different departments. No real answer. --19h00s (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to assume that the government cannot hold a copyright. That is an incorrect assumption. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about works created by government employees in the course of their duty as government workers. The government can of course own any copyright given or ceded to it by another entity, but a government employee's creations as a course of their federal job cannot be copyrighted. 19h00s (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is that all who work for the government are employees. If the government contracts a team to make a film, they are not considered employees. Their work is not restricted. It will be copyrighted. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could've just said that, instead of speaking around what you meant to make me seem like I didn't know what I was talking about? But thanks! 19h00s (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. Works by government employees are copyrightable; only "edicts", whatever that means but its a specific term related to copyright, will not lead to copyright statuses. Where the federal government is concerned, copyright exclusion concerns domestic copyright protection, so there's a bit an uncertain area regarding what is concretely the definition of public domain. -- Askedonty (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification, super helpful. Appreciate the constructive assistance! 19h00s (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the Gallery could simply not afford offering to the public "fair game" as you said in the content of their videos when their intent is promoting the artist. The Board of Trustees system with its dependence on outsiders is known as a pattern allowing more or less external control on its subject matter. Implicitly insiders would be complaining if the Institution objectives were being jeopardized. They probably also could simply abstain executing. --Askedonty (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that these museums are what the UK calls quangos. One such entity, the US Postal Service, has held copyright on its creations since 1971, when it ceased to be a traditional government department. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 313.6(C)(1) (3d ed. 2021) makes clear that Works prepared by officers or employees of the Smithsonian Institution are not considered works of the U.S. government if the author-employee was paid from the Smithsonian trust fund. Presumably this applies to the National Gallery of Art too. Shells-shells (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are legendary, thank you thank you thank you!!! 19h00s (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

American politicians and media support for Israel

This is not a forum for debate. If anyone has a specific question that is not a request for "opinions, predictions or debate", please feel free to ask in a new section below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USA attacked Vietnam and then made a movie Rambo-First Blood part 2. The movie showed that Vietnamese are bad guys and the movie was second highest grossing film in 1985.

USA attacked Iraq and hates Iran.

USA blindly supports Israel and don't care how many Palestinians die in Israel retaliation.

The U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs on seven countries in 2016, according to an analysis by the Council of Foreign Relations. All Muslim countries and I can assume that bombs killed many innocent civilians along with terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pakistan-afghanistan-libya-yemen-somalia-n704636

What was the purpose of attacking Afghanistan by USA and staying there for two decades spending so much money when I see many YouTube videos of homeless Americans, crumbling Infrastructure in many mid sized American cities? As Taliban came back to power and all efforts by USA was waste of time.

But in 1971 USA also supported Pakistan Army and Nixon and Kissinger tried their best to cover up genocide by Pakistan Army.

Nixon and Kissinger's Forgotten Shame By Gary J. Bass Sept. 29, 2013

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html

Looking away from genocide- Some ten million Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship; they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further atrocities.https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/looking-away-from-genocide

If USA comes out in support of Jews then why they don't come out in support of Nigerian Christians?

https://www.ncronline.org/news/over-50000-massacred-nigeria-being-christian-last-14-years-report-says

https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/nigeria-is-worst-in-the-world-for-persecution-of-christians-in-2021

https://www.persecution.org/2022/05/14/nigeria-worlds-scariest-country-christian/

I also don't see much coverage in USA media about regular massacres of Nigerian Christians. Only some Nigerian websites and Christian websites mention, while CNN, NyTimes, Washingtons Post don't cover the attacks against Nigerians Christians.

Is there any political reason that USA supports Israel when they also support Pakistan and they care more for Jews than Christians of Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia? They bomb Muslim countries and then lecture others about caring for Muslims?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/christians-egypt-unprecedented-persecution-report

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jul/27/where-in-the-world-is-it-worst-place-to-be-a-christian Ranthambor (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American politicians in particular, but more generally most politicians worldwide, do things for only two reasons: to win more votes (or not lose them) by taking positions that more of their potential voters will (they think) like, and to attract more monetary donations (or not lose them) to their election campaigns by the same means. This is all tied up with obtaining and maintaining a grasp on power - each aspect feeds the other. In non-democratic countries where voting is less of a consideration, the power and money go hand in hand.

Much the same applies to most media outlets, who want purchases of and/or eyes on their material so that their advertisers pay them more, or if state-controlled want to push the current official lines. They publish what they think will most interest their audience. Comprehensiveness, balance, and a neutral point of view are not nonexistent, but are rare and generally not profitable.

Governments are at base amoral and pragmatic, they promote their own and (if we're lucky) their own peoples' interests, regardless of morality or consistency. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.71.208.84 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically regarding the support for Israel, various organizations that represent (segments of) the American Jewish community are poised to accuse any politician of antisemitism if they do not support Israel 100%. This has a large impact on their fundraising prospects. Many Christian millennialists, in particular dispensationalists, also support Israel fully. --Lambiam 05:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranthambor --- Your post was a more of a tedious political rant than a question. Have you bothered to notice that in October 2023 the actions of Hamas are extremely evil? Whatever the complexities of the broader mideast situation, someone who merely chose to be against evil might find himself/herself leaning toward Israel (in preference to Hamas) in October, 2023. Anyway, the bloom has been off the U.S.-Pakistan alliance for quite some time, since even before the 2011 discovery that Bin Laden was hanging out in Abbottabad. Many U.S. Congressmen and national security and military officials are in fact extremely disgusted with Pakistan's military and ISI perpetually stabbing the U.S. in the back, though the U.S. government has continued to work with Pakistan's government in limited and diminishing ways. Many of your other examples of U.S. actions (not inactions) are about 50 years old. Anyway, why not look at the annual reports of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom and the statements of the United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom? I bet some of the countries you mentioned as persecuting Christians are prominently mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unconditional support by the USA of Israel stems from well before October 2023. A thorough exposition is given by the book The Triangular Connection: America, Israel and American Jews, first published in 1982. --Lambiam 14:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any claim that the USA supports anything is absolutely incorrect. The USA is a land mass filled with people that highly disagree with one another. A policy set in motion by one politician may be supported by one group of people, but it will certainly be rejected by another group of people. As for media, it is a business. Whatever gets views is what is shown in media because views are used to make money. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of metonomy? Everyone who is not intellectually challenged understands that the headline "Moscow says high risk of 'third-party' entering war in Israel" does not imply that the city of Moscow, Russian Federation, has miraculously developed a speech organ. --Lambiam 12:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misread my statement. I didn't state the United States cannot speak. I stated that it is a deeply divided population of people. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the context, "USA" obviously means the executive branch of the United States, which is a constitutional federal republic, and not just a populated area situated mainly between Canada and Mexico. --Lambiam 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 16

The use of a 3 as a stylized E

Look at H3llb3nt. I believe the 3's in this name are simply stylized E's. However, look at M3GAN. Reading the plot shows that the 3 in this name is a real numeral 3 and NOT a stylized E; yet it is pronounced as if it were a stylized E. Any interesting case of this that you can name?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk wanted to call the entry-level Tesla the Model E, so that the full range could spell S-E-X-Y. But there was already a car called a Model E, so he called it the Model 3 instead. --Viennese Waltz 16:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NUMB3ERS television show.
Sleigh (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NUMB3RS, actually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Leet. Nanonic (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In one of his songs from the 1950s, Tom Lehrer talked about a friend of his who spelled his name Hen3ry. He said the 3 was silent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hen3ry the eighth I am, I am. Hen3ry the eighth I am. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then there was the cover of "Sgt. Pepper", which featured BEATLES in all caps, and some of the "Paul is dead" hoaxsters claimed that upside down it could be read as 5371438, which was supposed to be an important phone number in their theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it, the guitar made of yellow flowers under the word "Beatles" was claimed to spell out the word "PAUL?" --Viennese Waltz 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mrs. Wilson is President!"

Wikipedia appears to make no reference to this quote from sometime in the 1918-1921 interval. Internet sites talking about it reveal it was by someone named Albert B. Fall. But Wikipedia's article on Albert B. Fall says nothing about Mrs. Wilson. Any article talking about information related to this quote anywhere?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be December 4, 1919. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest mention of the quote which Google Books is bringing up is a 1921 issue of Ladies Home Journal; it attributes it to Fall but does not give a date: [2]. Warofdreams talk 22:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what inspired Hillary Clinton: I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article in the Smithsonian Magazine also places it in 1919, in which Fall is reported to have shouted on the Senate floor, "We have [a] petticoat government. Wilson is not acting. Mrs. Wilson is president." (I only get a GBS snippet view on the link above after December 4, 1919. I don't get why the author inserted "[a]", just "petticoat government" seems fine to me.) --Lambiam 10:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that it was actually during a Senate Foreign Affairs committee meeting (rather than just on the floor). Power With Grace (1975) adds that Fall called Wilson the "Presidentress who had fulfilled the dream of the suffragettes by changing her title from First Lady to Acting First Man" (p. 218). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen and Edith (2010) notes that the Foreign Relations Committee had Secretary of State Lansing testify on December 4 ("about the still-turbulent situation in Mexico). At that meeting, Lansing said that he hadn't talked to Wilson about Mexico since August, and people were concerned about Wilson's health. They sent Fall and Hitchcock to talk to Wilson on December 5. When there, Fall reportedly (according to Edith herself), said "Well, Mr. President, we have all been praying for you." to which Wilson responded "Which way, Senator?"
It is not hard to imagine Fall making his comments during the session where Lansing testified the day before. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For background, see Edith_Wilson#Increased_role_after_husband's_stroke. Woodrow Wilson, president 1913-1921, was severely weakened by a stroke in 1919. Since this was almost half a century before the creation of a constitutional process for handling presidential disability, no one exactly knew what to do (presidents had died and been replaced, but no president had suffered long-term disability), and Edith Wilson ended up taking over many of her husband's responsibilities. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Men Writers

Wikipedia has an article on Women writers but Men writers doesn't exist. I ask Google. Google tells me that "women writers" will give me 9,360,000 results. "Men writers" will give me 61,600 results. "Female writers" will give me 1,700,000 results. "Male writers" will give me 665,000 results. The very first edit of Women writers is from 08:49, 26 August 2006. I am not sure if I should be the first person to create Men writers. Where do I begin? From the dawn of human civilization? How can we confirm the sex of a writer in ancient times? The main article can be Men writers while the redirect can be male writers. Yrotarobal (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could try drafting such an article and see how it looks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationale is that writers were traditionally always men, so when women writers came on to the scene it was necessary to differentiate them. That default assumption probably still applies, although it's far from true anymore. For the same sorts of reasons, we have lots of lists and categories about LGBTQI++++ people, but none about their straight counterparts. Straight is the cultural default, gay is the minority. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like when we Americans have "Black History Month", and some joker will say, "When is White History Month?" And the answer is, "It's the other eleven." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain whether you are serious, or are trolling out of an anti-woke sentiment. In any case, we have no article Men writers for the very simple reason that the topic is not notable. In contrast, many books have been written about the topic of women writers. --Lambiam 10:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should say "possibly not notable", or you should mention doing a WP:BEFORE check; it's possible that books have been written on the topic. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was anti-woke, it would be a complaint that "men identifying as women" are being listed in the women writers category. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably pre-woke, but we have articles on Ms George Eliot and Ms George Sand. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomamae, Hokkaido

The current mayor of Tomamae town is Atsurō Fukushi ("福士敦朗"). Can you search info about him: place and date of birth, family, education, career, beginning of mayor's career, etc.? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.137.38 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kakhovka Reservoir

According to our article (complete with pictures), the reservoir has been completely dry (but for the river channel itself) for some time. When there was still a reservoir of water there, the Russian front line ran along the southern edge of it and the Ukrainian front line ran along the northern edge of it, with all the water in the middle. Now that most of the water is land, who controls it? I can't find any mention of either side moving to occupy it. -sche (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering this myself. It seems to me that there is a tacit agreement by both parties to avoid offensive operations near the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. So they probably have advanced some observer units to the new/old river banks and halted. Also, there's no cover or roads there, so reinforcing the mudplain would just expose more personnel to enemy fire. Abductive (reasoning) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letters for US Federal Reserve branches

US banknotes historically included (and the $1 note still includes) a small seal indicating what branch of the Federal Reserve originated them. As you can see on this image, it says "Federal Reserve Bank of/New York New York", with a large "B" in the centre. All New York City notes have a "B", and there's a similar letter-to-branch correlation for each of the other branches.

Aside from banknotes, has the Federal Reserve ever commonly used this system to refer to branches? If so, it might not anymore; its website uses numbers to refer to the branches, and its description page for the New York branch doesn't have any appearances of "B", except mentioning how its trustees are grouped into Classes A, B, and C. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nyttend, I think "A" is Boston, "B" is New York, and "C" is Philadelphia. Georgia guy (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and D is Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. But, why are they called the "Cincinnati branch" and "Pittsburgh branch" of the "Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland"?? Why can't they simply be called the "Federal Reserve Bank of Cincinnati" and "Federal Reserve Bank of Pittsburgh"?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but again, other than on banknotes, have these letters routinely been used for these branches? Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Reserve regards those letters as part of its serial numbering system. If you look at higher denomination bills, that letter is in the second position but not the seal. The Fed uses data on the bills shredded at each reserve to request new replacement bills be printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. So "B" (New York) and "L" (San Francisco) have way more bills printed with their letters than, for instance, "I" (Minneapolis). The Fed still makes an effort to ship the new bills to the correct branch. Abductive (reasoning) 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]