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.

July 4

How do French people nowadays feel about France's colonial history in Algeria?

How do French people nowadays feel about France's colonial history in Algeria? Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that it extended directly into France, with the return of the pieds-noirs, the Paris massacre of 1961, etc? It was not one of those wars which takes place in remote geographical locations without much direct impact on the imperial power. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely a good point. Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(consider the following as anecdotal)

Few of them ever cared, being concerned only that their conscripted sons won't be killed/injured in action during the Algerian war (very few were, so, then again, this concern just disappeared at the end of the war). Those who care are still few, and, depending on personal history and political views, may have the following feeling

betrayal (descendants of pieds-noirs & harki; nationalists with belief that tens of millions of arab muslims could have been turned into ordinary French the way Sephardi Jews were -- Crémieux Decree)
relief of having dumped this [insert derogatory] (this will include people with belief that tens of millions of arab muslims could NOT have been turned into ordinary French)
pride for the good work (the good work could be different, and even opposite: pieds-noirs will insist they actually build Algeria out of small retarded slavers pirate holes; communists will be very proud that they have -- if they were actually born, that is-- helped independence)
shame or anger (usually in the form "I am so ashamed of what you did --yes, you, despite not even being born at the time, but I know you would--, you deserve that I punch you in the face, you torturer, you terrorist, you racist"). Again, opposing political side will have opposing ideas about what/who deserve shame or anger.
concern about current terrorism (some perp are indeed connected to Algeria)
resignation, that things of the past must still be coped with
oh come on, leave me alone with this shit I have no part in
any number of these mixed

In any case, this part of French history, just like any history, is more of an ideological tool to push current political views (it is rich enough of good and bad deeds, to select whatever will confirm an activist's bias), that an issue in itself.

Basically, you'll have the same "this is awesome we have some many people from Algeria, it bring so much cultural enrichment nb: somehow "Cultural enrichment" redirect to Enrichment culture, this redirect is just nonsense" and "Are you kidding me? those retards/terrorist "chances pour la France" {nb: just search this, I think you'll find the results quite graphic. The expression meant "people France is lucky to have" was coined to support "aliens" {those "aliens" are actually legally French, but you'll get it}, and as been turned upside down by systematic sarcastic usage for each and every misdeed involving them --and there are no lack of such} do not belong here" debate as anywhere else (well, hard to call it a debate, just like anywhere).

Gem fr (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent summary, explanation, and analysis, Gem fr! Thank you very much for this! Futurist110 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, AnonMoos, and Gem fr, please participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 4#Cultural enrichment if you have an opinion on the question. Nyttend (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that the vast majority of those under fourty years old and who's ancestors were not involved are not aware that France has a colonial history in Algeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:19C1:25F5:DC95:6F8 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Whose ancestors were not involved"? That would seem to limit your pool of acquaintance to those who (or whose parents) immigrated to France after 1962. Henry ^Flower 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the vast majority of French, including political leaders, are not aware that France has a history. There, fixed for you. I mean, France just failed to invite Russia to 75th Anniversary of D-Day, and invited Germany instead, because, you know, Germany was "involved"... Ye, sure it was. I really understand what Orwell meant: I am living it. Gem fr (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That postwar switcheroo was exactly what Orwell was making fun of, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Gem fr (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:19C1:25F5:DC95:6F8 -- the Algerian war almost led to a military coup in France, and did lead to the rewriting of France's constitution and the change from the French Fourth Republic to the French Fifth Republic. It's as important in French history as the Vietnam war is in United States history (though admittedly a decade earlier). AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. It's quite interesting that French emotions were so high about Algeria. Futurist110 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, you might want to look at: The Algerian War in the French education system: a case study in the transmission of memory. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll definitely take a look at it! Futurist110 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian tanker went through Gibraltar territorial waters, why?

Today’s news: Looking at maps on google for Gibraltar territorial waters, it looks like the Iranian tanker could easily have avoided Gibraltar and piloted through only Spanish waters. In fact, it looks like they had to go out of their way to go through the Gibraltar waters. Any pundits have made a guess at why they would go into British waters? I assume they had no idea they were going to be stopped, but still, it is quite an interesting path choice, especially after such another very interesting path (by the cape!) —Lgriot (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find out the details, but there is a traffic separation scheme by the International Maritime Organisation in force in the strait of Gibraltar (see [1] - I'm to lazy and uninformed to understand the navigational legalese), which separates east-bound and west-bound traffic into different traffic lanes. I don't know if the east-bound traffic necessarily goes through British territorial waters, but it might. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source and a few others, I think, say something like this: "... as it paused to take on supplies off Gibraltar overnight." I imagine that supplies may be easier to get from Gibraltar than from other nearby ports. So it might want to sail closer to Gibraltar to facilitate this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a traffic separation scheme in the Straight of Gibraltar. Eastbound traffic usually keeps to the Moroccan side, westbound traffic to the Spanish side. They could have steered through only Moroccan waters. For ships resupplying there are anchorages near Algeciras and Gibraltar. There's nothing strange about going around Cape of Good Hope. According to the above source, this ship was too big/heavily loaded for the Suez Canal. Going around the Cape also allowed them to avoid tolls and with cheap and non-perishable cargo like crude oil you aren't in a hurry anyway (unless it's desperately needed). I don't know how diplomatic relations between Iran/Syria and Egypt/Yemen/Eritrea/Djibouti are right now, but it could be a factor too. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this was enforcement of EU sanctions, [2] the Spanish could equally well have done the deed instead. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PiusImpavidus, you say "They could have steered through only Moroccan waters." So this would be to get to the anchorage near Gibraltar? I don't think anyone is disputing that the vessel was boarded in Girbraltarian waters? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they had not gone to the anchorage, they could have avoided Spanish and Gibraltarian waters. One can go to the anchorage near Algeciras without passing through Gibraltarian waters too, but one cannot reach any of the Gibraltarian anchorages without passing through Spanish waters (as far as Spain is concerned (officially), there are no Gibraltarian waters). With sufficient planning and no unexpected events the ship could have passed through the straight without stopping for resupply, so it seems that they really didn't expect to be boarded (unless they actually wanted to provoke an incident). PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for clarifying. I wonder would there have been any contact between the tanker and the Gibraltar Port Authority? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:PiusImpavidus you can’t avoid Spanish waters if you are entering the Mediterranean via the straight. That is because of Ceuta. Look at maps of the territorial waters in that area. —Lgriot (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (although Morocco objects) [3]. I didn't know that. Funny. Gem fr (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fuzzy. The UK claims 3NM territorial waters around Gibraltar (not recognised by Spain), Spain and Morocco each claim 12NM (more or less, or to the midpoint in case of overlapping 12-mile-zones), but the claims around the Spanish possessions on the south side of the strait are not recognised by Morocco. The map depends on who made it.

UNCLOS defines the concept of transit passage through international straits so narrow that ships cannot stay in international waters. Status of the Strait of Gibraltar as such an international strait may or may not be fully recognised by the states surrounding it. Reading up on this I get the impression that as long as the ship claimed its right of transit passage, it could have passed through unimpeded, but stopping for resupply meant it was no longer in transit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is really interesting, I didn't know about this rule in international straights, thanks! --Lgriot (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably much the same reason the British went out of their way to send a flotilla through the Corfu Channel in 1946: Innocent passage and as an act of brinksmanship. See Corfu Channel incident and Corfu Channel case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the above it sounds more like carelessness on the part of the tanker's captain? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. So they were resupplying and were unaware of it all. —Lgriot (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be wrong of me to accuse the captain of "carelessness". He was probably sailing the vessel perfectly normally and safely. It's not clear to me if he was culpable in the attempt to subvert EU sanctions. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following my question here above and your kind replies, I am better able to understand today's news, (this time in the strait of Hormuz...)

While reading on this, I found this amazing map. https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-6.4/centery:45.5/zoom:7

You can actually see the position of tens of thousands of ships in the world (if not 100s of thousands).

There are filters available, but just from the look of it, you can deduct that dark blue are ferries and other passenger ships like cruise liners, amber are fishing, pink are pleasure, green are goods-shipping and red are tankers, and turquoise include ships from various navies (but it seems that color is used by other types as well, like tugs). Just wanted to share as I found it really enlightening, especially, you can "see" the shipping lanes, as there are so many tankers and container ships in those lanes exactly. --Lgriot (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Bizarrely high prices for books

Think of a recently published book from a non-vanity publisher: a book that's still in print, maybe a textbook for advanced undergrads from a university press, one whose RRP is €30 to €50. Now see the prices quoted for it by a variety of bookstores via Abebooks or similar.

Chances are, you'll find a number of offers of new copies, from somewhat below the RRP to multiples of the RRP, perhaps five times the RRP, possibly even higher than that. (And no, I'm not talking about signed copies, "éditions de luxe", or any other fillip of "collectibility"; just what are, according to their listings, new copies of the bog standard item.)

The first time I noticed this, I put it down to inexperienced assistants, manic optimism by the borderline insane, or some other aberration. (I mean, who would expect that someone's going to pay $150 for a new copy of a book when she can just as easily buy the same thing for $25?) However, this phenomenon is commonplace. It must surely be the result of conscious decisions by sane people in the bookselling biz. So what's the logic? (Money laundering, maybe?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this on Amazon to an extent, and mostly with books. Some of the high volume sellers use automated pricing to adjust their own asking price, usually by besting the lowest price by one cent. The autoscripts can do this multiple times an hour. Meanwhile some very expensive offers would also be there for the very same item. I have two ideas why: they’re hoping all the cheap offers will quickly sell out leaving only their item available; or their hoping for someone to assume their item and/or service is presumed to be worth the expense - you get what you pay for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was thinking. Even if they sell only a fraction of the inflated items they will come out well ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a business model whereby a U.S. bookseller who also ships internationally will take an order for a mint condition book for anywhere in the world that they can ship to. They then buy the copy they need from one of the low-priced but reputable sellers and have them ship it to their export facilities on the border or coast. After inspection they repackage and ship. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was often the practical way of getting a book published in the UK to someone living in the US, pre-internet. Possibly AbeBooks is counting on the desire to have a book right now in this era of instant gratification.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if these outfits don't actually have any stock, and have automated the entire process -- spidering the website to get prices, multiplying these prices by five or whatever, posting the resulting ads, spidering to make sure that the cheap offers are still there, and removing their own ads once those cheap offers have gone -- then it starts to make sense. However, somebody has to buy some of this stuff, at least now and again. I really wonder who these people might be, and why they do it. (Certainly very high-priced, very stupid books have been used for money laundering.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have also noticed this lately. I found it quite bizarre and unbelievable. It was quite curious and inexplicable. I could have posted the same exact question as the original poster did. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with reliable sources for Harry Hay - NAMBLA content

Hi! I’ve run into a bit of a problem accessing thus assessing reliable sources demonstrating how and why Harry Hay is connected to the pedophile advocacy group NAMBLA.
At an open, now very lengthy request to review what I see as WP:Undue/WP:POV concerns at the NPOV noticeboard, two sources have newly been offered as solutions:

Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399.

Hay, Harry (1997). Will Roscoe (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819.

Unfortunately I’m using Google Books so can only view some of the pages. I want ensure I’m only using content in context, and that I’m not omitting key points. This board has been very helpful in the past so I’m hopeful someone might have a solution or suggestion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether you're only interested in ensuring that the Wikipedia article reflects the text or whether you're also interested in an evaluation of the sources themselves for reliability. I don't have access to the sources, but I'll give you my evaluation in case you'd find it useful. Beacon Press is a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association, somewhat of an advocacy publisher, but still potentially useful. Left Coast Press is an imprint of Routledge/Taylor & Francis, a globally prominent academic publisher. I'd be hesitant to use the Beacon book, as both the publisher and the editor you linked have long histories of being activists rather than dispassionate scholars, but it could be useful for simple factual statements, e.g. "Hay did X in year YYYY". Conversely, anything coming from T&F is highly likely to be reliable both for simple statements of fact and for theoretical analysis, and I'd need to be given a solid reason to doubt a specific book from them before I advised someone to be careful using it. I don't know much about Hubbard (he doesn't appear to have an article here), but a quick search found him cited in a number of other LGBT-related articles, e.g. Homosexuality in ancient Rome. That article cites a book that he edited, OCLC 1041215627, from John Wiley & Sons, another globally important academic publisher. There's basically a 0% chance that anyone who's edited or written books published by T&F and Wiley will have written anything except solid scholarly work. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That’s very helpful actually. The current text in the Hay article on this subject is dreadfully sourced or unsourced. Additionally it takes up a fourth of the lead where I doubt anything belongs. So I started a survey of anything that might be useful and was underwhelmed. These two sources above can likely replace all the poor ones currently being used.
As luck would have I started with the Left Coast Press one, but I still can’t tell, because of the missing pages, the full context of the comments. I may have to search out a library copy or heaven forbid buy the book! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're okay with mentioning this on-wiki — where do you live? I may be able to help you see what interlibrary loan options you have, especially (as is true for some) if your local library is a member of LVIS. Of course, if you don't feel comfortable revealing your location, just say so and I won't bug you :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d rather hold back personal information for now, but I do appreciate the offer. I just confirmed a copy is on the way, not that I’m looking forward to spending even more time on this! But I’d rather we get it right even if it’s a slog to get there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Hope you're able to find the book useful. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrers

Bellott v Mountjoy was a minor English lawsuit in 1612 that's known today because a witness was a guy named "William Shakespeare". According to our article on it:

Stephen Bellott, a Huguenot, sued his father-in-law Christopher Mountjoy, a tyrer (a manufacturer of ladies' ornamental headpieces and wigs) for...

Is there an alternate name for Mountjoy's occupation? I've linked "tyrer" to tyrer (occupation), since an established occupation should have an article; it was established enough that Tyrer is a disambiguation page for people with this name. I wonder if an article might exist under some other name, but I've never heard of "tyrer" before and don't have a clue what other names might exist. It sounds more precise than "wigmaker", like the relationship between "cabinetmaker" and "carpenter". Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A History of British Surnames by Richard Mckinley (p. 178) suggests that the surname Tyrer is "probably from the craft of making iron tyres for wheels".

However, solid support for the headdress theory (with Biblical references) comes from Our English Surnames: Their Sources and Significations by Charles Wareing Endell Bardsley, London 1875 (p. 335). From that it would seem to be more closely allied to a milliner than to a wig maker. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Tyrer might be an abbreviation of attirer - as in tiring houses, the dressing rooms (for attiring) or green rooms of theaters in Shakespeare's day - "this hawthorn-brake our tiring-house" - Peter Quince in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 3 Scene 1 - Epinoia (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Marau‘s travel in 1884

Are there any good secondary sources summarizing Tahitian Queen Marau‘s travel in 1884 to France? That are preferably in English.KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Graphic newspaper of 21 June 1884 has a number of illustrations related to Tahiti and includes the comment "Queen Marau, whose recent visit to Paris created much interest in French circles, is about five-and-twenty years of age, and is an excellent musician. She travelled practically incognito, as plain Madame Salmon, and was accompanied by her little son." MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more tidbits in [4], which mentions "she acquired a wardrobe of gowns by the Paris designer Charles Frederick Worth and visited with heads of state".

French sources are far more abundant, are you willing to look at those? [5] gives her itinerary on the outward voyage: left Tahiti in 1883 and travelled via San Francisco, then train to New York, then steamer to Europe. [6] (spelling her name Marahu) is a three-page account; in between all the rude and racist remarks about Tahiti :( there are a few facts: she arrived by boat at Havre, she was in Paris to request an increase in her allowance, she smoked cigarettes, she was appalled by Montmartre. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bell cast from silver coins

"...in its tower a silver bell, cast from metal of 200 silver-dollars donated by wealthy residents." Looking for info on silver dollars in circulation between 1855 and the turn of the century. I am trying to back my way in to the value of said bell, as far as the amount of silver contained within. It's historical value would be priceless, as the bell was lost or stolen sometime around 1920. Ditch ∝ 15:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silver dollars struck between 1840 and 1935 contained .77344 troy oz of silver and were .900 pure. There were also Trade dollars, struck mostly in the 1870s, that contained .7874 troy oz (and also .900 pure) but those never circulated much in the US. See Seated Liberty dollar and Morgan dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's quote is from Fannin, Mississippi. Google was unable to find me any information about, or even a mention of, the lost bell (Wikipedia excepted), which is a bit odd - I was hoping to discover a date. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bell is mentioned in the source cited (kind of in the middle) from a historical essay found online. I have seen at least one other mention in the archives of our public library, but one or the other is probably derived from the original, as the info is pretty much the same, just worded differently. I am working with someone with family Masonic ties to see if their records can better pinpoint the date...but for now, the best I have to go on is somewhere between 1855 and 1925. 19:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't have made any difference in terms of the weight of the silver coins. The silver dollar remained the same weight through the period. I wonder if there were political implications to the bell? The Free Silver movement was important to the politics of the last years of the 19th century and Mississippi, like the rest of the agricultural South, was strongly for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The silver dollar was definitely more commonly seen after the Bland-Allison Act of 1878 required the striking of massive quantities. I would think such a bell would not easily survive the Civil War and Reconstruction unmelted. I"d focus on after 1878.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long tradition of throwing coins into the metal for a new bell–there are trace amounts of gold and silver in the Liberty Bell that probably stem from that–but I haven't heard of a bell made from coin silver. I wonder how the sound was?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was a very unique and specific pitch, as, years later, someone reported hearing it ring at a large (unidentified) plantation in the Delta. Ditch ∝ 20:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said it might be postwar but there's mention of a silver bell in Mississippi here in 1861.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I just ate lunch there like 2 hours ago. (The Manship House is now a higher-ish end restaurant and events venue connected to a medical center...I did not see a bell). Anyway, thanks to y'all's help, I rough-mathed a value of about $3,000 in today's silver exchange. I am on the trail of this bell, so if anyone has access to Masonic or behind-a-paywall genealogical records, and can do a search for "Rankin Masonic Institute" and let me know if there is any info of value to be found, I would much appreciate it. Ditch ∝ 21:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small world. This calculator gives a value of $2,506.06. Let us know what you find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the source for the article, [7] it says that the institute was "in full operation" by 1855. Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between males and females in sports performance

Obviously, there are many differences between males and females, when it comes to performance in sports. As a basic premise, males have more muscles (muscle mass) and strength than females. Hence, when you compare the statistics of males and females, the males will generally be bigger, faster, higher, longer, stronger, etc. (depending on the particular sport and what is being measured). My question: Look at the data comparing male performance versus female performance at this chart: Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest#Results. The best female performance is less than half of the best male performance (31 versus 71, in the year 2019). What exactly would account for such a huge disparity between males and females in an eating contest? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found:

Alansplodge (talk)

Those are related to psychology. I am assuming there must be some anatomical or physiological distinction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be as simple as the fact that males (on average) are larger than females (on average)? Larger overall size would equal larger individual organs, i.e. stomachs. --Khajidha (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. But, I don't think that stomach size is all that relevant. This particular contest is ten minutes long. If a female stomach were to be "filled" (over capacity) in less than ten minutes, then your theory would make sense. But, I suspect, both the male and the female stomach do not fill to capacity within ten minutes. There must be some other factors at play. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info about how large the stomach can be stretched to.[8] It doesn't explicitly answer the male vs. female question, but one comment says, "The volume of the human stomach varies depending on the person." Children would have smaller stomachs than adults. And it's reasonable to suppose that a larger adult might have a larger stomach than a smaller adult. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stomach#Structure mention a size up to 4 liters. But the limiting factor may be not the stomach, but rather the pharynx or the oesophagus, and the munching. Gem fr (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technique? Takeru Kobayashi took the record from 25 ⅛ to 50 by changing his technique. --Error (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But technique would be independent of gender, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Gruesome imprisonment

I am trying to remember the name of a European possibly English noblewoman who was imprisoned and starved with her son and at the last moment of her life she chewed on her dead son’s fingers due to her hunger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:10D:2B1E:4477:7CF2:2B5B:CE92 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Báthory bricked up but not starved and not with son.
Sleigh (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immurement#Notable_incidents mention of Maud de Braose looks like what you are looking for. Gem fr (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other gruesome stories about the same lady at A head for my lady love – a most unusual gift. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source, quoting the medieval Annals of Margam, says that it was her son's cheeks, rather than fingers. There is some uncertainty over whether Windsor Castle or Corfe Castle was the venue. Alansplodge (talk)

July 8

Illegitimate royal children who were the designated heirs to a throne

Which illegitimate royal children (or people who were descended from an illegitimate royal line) were there who were the designated heirs to a throne? For the record, I am not talking about an illegitimate royal child conquering a country and installing himself as the king or queen based on the sheer power and force of his or her troops (like what William the Conqueror did in England). Rather, I am talking about illegitimate royal children (or people who were descended from an illegitimate royal line) being the designated heirs to a throne--as in, the existing monarch would designate them as his heirs. Which cases of this have there been throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Trastámara "were an illegitimate cadet line of the House of Ivrea".

Did they come to power with the support of the previous monarchs or did they seize power by force, though? Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Joanna la Beltraneja was considered heir by part of the realm. --Error (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good example--though ultimately she never actually became Queen of Castile. Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at her Wikipedia article again, I'm now less sure about her. After all, she doesn't actually appear to have been illegitimate if one places value on legal paternity. She might or might not have been illegitimate in the biological sense, but not in the legal sense since legally speaking, she was the daughter of a married royal couple and her married father claimed her as his daughter. Futurist110 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis II of Monaco adopted his bastard daughter Charlotte so that Monaco would have an heir and remain under the Grimaldis. She abdicated her right in favor of her son Ranier, who eventually ruled - Nunh-huh 02:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England were born legitimate, Mary became illegitimate when the marriage between her parents was invalid and Elizabeth became heir persumptive. Elizabeth became illegitimate when the marriage of her parents was annulled. Mary and Elizabeth were made legitimate by Third Succession Act. During Elizabeth's reign, the Pope made Elizabeth illegitimate.
Sleigh (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth mentioning that, at least by Catholic canon law, the children of a marriage later annulled are legitimate. The succession after Henry VIII's death was more a matter of power than right or principle (improvisational law, as it were). - Nunh-huh 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that, by any Christian canon law, you just cannot annul a marriage when there are children (unless --not even sure -- they are proven bastards and the wife a cheater. In which case, when powerful enough, you probably just sentence her to death instead, and that's it). So such an annulment would be improvisational law. On the other hand, without children, no problem (I am thinking of a case where the marriage was dissolved because the husband manhood was found useless upon examination by witnesses...) Gem fr (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be pretty sure, but you're still wrong. The Catholic Church grants annulments to people with children all the time. As for legitimacy, see this explanation. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although Catholic canon law had no force in England after the Act of Supremacy 1534 which established Henry as Head of the Church of England. The legislation that made Mary illegitimate was the First Succession Act (1534), both Mary and Elizabeth in the Second Succession Act (1536) and they were restored to legitimacy by (you guessed) the Third Succession Act (1543). Henry died in 1547 and was succeeded by his son, Edward VI of England, who tried to alter the succession by means of his will, but on Edward's premature death, Mary led a successful coup deposing his appointee, Lady Jane Grey. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is none: you just cannot be the designated heir to a throne if you are illegitimate. You'll need to be legitimised before. This is one of the reason Louis XIV of France did that. Gem fr (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIV's action was swiftly reversed by the parlement of Paris after his death, though. Thus, Louis couldn't actually make his decision in regards to this stick. Futurist110 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. de los Iudeos in Baja California Sur

In California, an island? Meet cartography's most persistent mistake, I find this map (at the collection as well), Granata Nova et California, by Corneille Wytfliet, [Louvain, 1597]. I noticed around the 255, 35 coordinates the text P. de los Iudeos. I am not sure if P is puerto or punta, but by the shape I guess it is puerto ("port"). Iudeos could be a copy error for judíos ("Jews") or indios ("Indians"). So my questions are: Was there a "port of the Jews" in Baja California Sur? Where did it get its name from?

I realize that the map is not very realistic, I couldn't match the bay with an actual feature. So it all may be error upon error. --Error (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was a "port of the Indians" instead? Futurist110 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that is not very exciting. --Error (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's significant, but I read that label as P. de los Iudeas (not Iudeos). Deor (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/zg757qy1937 I zoomed and see a clear separation between o and s. --Error (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, the approximate latitude is 25, not 35 degrees.

Second, the letters I and J were used interchangeably until relatively recent times (discussed rather briefly at J#History), so Iudeos is the same as Judeos. I don't know what the word for "Jews" was in 16th century Spanish, though. (Side comment: I hate it that I see Wikipedia and most other web sites in sans serif fonts. Until I started composing this reply, I thought the original poster had misread the word on the map as ludeos!)

I'm guessing that the actual feature corresponding to the place is the little bay at 25.685 N 112.09 W. Google Maps doesn't know a name for it (it's not nearly as good on names of small bodies of water as it is on street names), but if you zoom in all the way, the name "Las Animas" appears on the water. That bay. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

76.69.117.113 -- If you set up a Wikipedia account and logged into it, then you could customize Wikipedia's appearance with a CSS command such as
"body { font-family: serif; }"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am not interested in doing that. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternal Brotherhood

Does anyone know anything about an organization called simply the "Fraternal Brotherhood" that existed in the U.S. in 1909? We have the photo shown here; https://www.historylink.org/File/8461 indicates that they gathered at the A-Y-P Exposition on July 23 of that year (though https://www.ebay.com/itm/FRATERNAL-BROTHERHOOD-DAY-Ribbon-1909-Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Expo-Seattle-AYP-AYPE-/113694168818 suggests strongly that it was one day later), so that is presumably when the picture was taken. Articles like [9] and [10] seem to make it certain that the organization was simply called "Fraternal Brotherhood" which of course if very hard to search on and not get 100 other "fraternal brotherhoods". - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an organisation confused about the meaning of "fraternal". Brotherly brotherhood? HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this reliable government source, J. A. Batchelor was the "Supreme President", and H. V. Davis the "Supreme Secretary" (snicker) in 1915. The same source states it (unclear if this refers to the organization as a whole or the "Supreme Lodge" in Los Angeles) was incorporated in 1896 and had a hefty year-end balance of over $1.35 million. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find anything about a founding date, or what became of the organization? Where a headquarters was? - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a substantial 1908 Los Angeles Herald article about a Fraternal Brotherhood, its purpose, membership and other interesting details. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this newspaper article about them. It seems it was primarily an insurance company operating under the guise of a fraternal order. Not uncommon during the Golden age of fraternalism. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a stub article, using the sources mentioned here: The Fraternal Brotherhood. If anyone's interested, I also worked out what became of the organization. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. F. Verwoerd

Did H. F. Verwoerd write any books? If so, please direct me to a list of these. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote this, and this, and maybe others. Dbfirs 12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six books listed here: "Books : Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd". www.amazon.com. 2606:A000:1126:28D:48F3:EC22:BDAE:8519 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did the people of New Mexico and Alta California prefer Mexican rule or US rule in 1848?

Did the people of New Mexico and Alta California (as in, the Mexican Cession) prefer Mexican rule or US rule in 1848? Futurist110 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they preferred either? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They preferred independence? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also why would you think that the "people" would all think the same way about either. MarnetteD|Talk 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the majority of them. Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the likelihood of there being any public opinion polls? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About zero, but has anyone attempted any guesses in regards to this? Perhaps by informally trying to detect the public mood in these territories during this time? Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in Tejanos, Neomexicanos, Californios. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to look at all of these articles? Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- as has been discussed here before several times, the territories that later became California, Arizona, and New Mexico were rather sparsely inhabited by non-Indian Mexicans in 1848, except in the northern New Mexico area. Most of the Indians probably favored whoever would leave them alone... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about the few non-Indian Mexicans who lived in the Southwest in 1848? Do we have any idea as whose rule they preferred? Futurist110 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do read the articles suggested by Kavebear above... Opinions were mixed... and the opinion of Hispanos in New Mexico were not always in sync with the opinion of Californios in California .... some saw the government in Mexico City as a corrupt dictatorship (while fictional... think of the Zorro legend) and saw annexation by the US as a good thing. Others were patriotic Mexicans who saw US annexation as a bad thing. Some (especially in California) wanted independence from Mexico, but not annexation by the US. Most probably just wanted to be left alone by all factions. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll definitely make sure to take a look at all of these articles! Futurist110 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Legal Compliance

Hello! Can someone tell me more about legal compliance (context: law)? I know all the basics but I'd like more information on just legal compliance and not legal governance/risk management, etc. I've looked at every link and even went past the 9th page on Google but I couldn't find anything of substance (just businesses explaining how they follow all the rules and stay legally compliant). Also, if there are any associations/organizations related to legal compliance, please list them. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.57.173 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal compliance" just means following the law. It isn't really a topic in its own right. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, we have Category:Regulatory compliance including a number of articles with "compliance" in their names... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The police department, traffic department and municipalities are examples of "associations/organizations" that can charge/fine/arrest you if you are not legally complying with the law. This will happen through the courts and if you don't comply with the court order you could go to jail. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did the leader of the US have to be a natural-born US citizen before the adoption of the US Constitution?

Did the leader of the US have to be a natural-born US citizen before the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787? Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any real "leader of the U.S." before 1787. Under the Articles of Confederation there was a semi-loose confederation of 13 autonomous states, each of which had one vote in the Congress of the Confederation, or Continental Congress. Sometimes people try to invoke the Presidents of the Continental Congress to try to claim that "George Washington wasn't the first president" etc. ad nauseam, which is very stupid, since it was a completely different office with much much less power than the Presidency of the U.S. under the 1787 constitution... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious, so I checked the list. Only one continental president was born outside the 13 colonies : Arthur St. Clair, who was born in Scotland.

Obviously the president of the Continental Congress was not the "leader of the US", because there was no US, but it'd be a stretch to even call them the "leader of the Continental Congress". Their job was basically to be a neutral master of ceremony when the congress was in session, not to make decisions on their own. The continental congress intentionally had no individual leader.ApLundell (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a slightly different interpretation of this question that people occasionally wonder : Obviously, George Washington could not possibly have been a "natural born" citizen of USA, so how did he qualify? But the constitution accounts for that, the full requirement is "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

ApLundell (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it would have covered Lafayette, who was made a citizen of several of the states during his 1784 visit, but would not have covered a slave born at Monticello, who was not considered a citizen.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves were not citizens by definition. Whether free black people (including ex-slaves) could be federal citizens was not definitively established until the Dred Scott decision in 1857, which stirred up huge political turmoil and was pretty much nullified by the 13th amendment in 1865... AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Articles of Confederation only require that the President of the Congress be appointed from among the delegates, and there is no citizenship requirement placed on the delegates - the states are left to figure out who can be a delegate and how to appoint them. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate question, I should say the state governments pre-dates the federal government. 13-states created the federal government, so what if someone was born in the U.S. but outside the 13-states, would he not be considered a citizen? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Originally there wasn't really anyplace "in the U.S. but outside the 13 states", since there were a lot of overlapping state claims, and many states claimed expansive western boundaries (in some cases theoretically extending all the way to the Pacific). It was one of the tasks of the Continental Congress to resolve many of these overlaps and persuade states to give up some of their more extravagant theoretical claims (see State cessions). One of the main results of this effort was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also take note of the 14th state. The Vermont Republic (1777-1791) was annexed by the United States in 1791. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing an essay.

I recently wrote a political essay. Is there any way for a non academic "ordinary guy" to have his paper published? Are there online websites with sufficient notability that will allow a non expert to write a piece? What are my options? --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 16:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could publish it yourself on a blog. If you're a previously unpublished writer that's probably your best chance of getting it out there. --Viennese Waltz 16:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publication (followed by self-marketing to draw attention to the piece) is not the only option. There are freelance writers who make a living writing essays or doing political reporting; they sell to magazines and newspapers (and their websites). If you are interested in going this route, your best bet is not to google - you'll be swamped with predatory content mills trying to attract writers for poor pay. If you're not careful, you'll make $0 or pennies, could sign a predatory contract that takes your republication rights, and will attract little attention. Instead, suggest you reach out to the closest journalism department in a university or college near you, and ask if you could come in and chat with a mentor about what the business is like and how to get into it. They can give you proper advice on how to pitch your essay and what steps to take once your piece is accepted. You might even get help editing it and making it more marketable before you start pitching, which will give you a head start, or advice on how to build a bit of a portfolio before you pitch something so close to your heart. If you don't live near any colleges, universities or newspaper companies, reach out online for advice from a reputable writers organization such as ASJA, NWU, SPJ. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try sending it to a reputable political magazine, of which there are many: I cite the New Statesman as a UK example, and The New Republic from the US (with which I myself am not familiar, being a Brit). Note that both articles are included in relevant Categories linked at the foot of each which should yield other examples – you will doubtless already be familiar with other US publications. While it's unlikely that the Editor would want to publish your current piece straight off, he might, if it shows sufficient promise, be willing to give feedback on it and consider you for future commissions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "published"? In some academic review? In a paper media? I never saw any non academic "ordinary guy" political essay published. I saw some from rich people, from famous people, or from anonymous but well connected group of civil servants. And I saw quite a lot on blogs, some relevant (or not...), attracting enough attention for, eventually, be famous enough to get published; in such case, that was the result of a hard long work to produce content, to build up an audience (a single essay was not enough). Gem fr (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US states that have or previously had only one legislative house

What US states were there that have or previously had only one legislative house? I know that Nebraska still has a unicameral legislature even today and that Pennsylvania apparently had a unicameral legislature in Benjamin Franklin's time, but what about any other US states? Futurist110 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per the Wikipedia article Unicameralism#Subnational, Nebraska and the council of the District of Columbia are the only current US examples.70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about in the past, though? Futurist110 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia until 1789 and Vermont until 1836. 77.58.230.187 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Factors leading to independence modern nation by modern nation British empire

Is there a website or some websites that shows the factors that lead to the independence of each modern-day nation from the British Empire. So far, I know that the World War II, racial prejudice and racial discrimination and religious discrimination were the factors that lead to Indian, Pakistani and later on Bangladeshi independence. Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can go to the Wikipedia pages for each of the countries that were previously part of the British Empire and see how they acquired independence. This Wikipedia article could help you get started on this: List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom. Futurist110 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DonMust90 -- In the 20th century, Ireland gained independence in a bloody war; the "old" or White dominions gained ever-increasing autonomy through a series of slow and gradual steps; India and Pakistan gained independence due to the aftermath of WW2, an increasing ratio of imperial costs to benefits, and the policies of the UK Labour government elected in 1945; and Israel gained independence because the UK threw up its hands in the air, admitted it was unable to determine the future of the Palestine Mandate, and threw the whole thing into the lap of the United Nations. Then the Tories came back into power, and Winston Churchill during his second stint as UK prime minister during the 1950s was determined to hold the lid on any further decolonizations. After Churchill left office in 1955, the pressures to decolonize became strong, and it wasn't all that long before the British "empire" consisted mainly of small islands and peninsulas. AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that Israel or even Palestine at the time was never part of the "Empire". -- 16:09, 10 July 2019 MilborneOne

It was a British-administered territory, not technically too different in status from British Cameroons or Tanganyika... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention Africa here. Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Union of South Africa was an old/white Dominion; otherwise independence of British African colonies belongs to the post-Churchill phase, starting with Ghana in 1957 (also the rather peculiar case of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1956). AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief outline at Decolonisation of Africa#British Empire. The fiercest insurgency was the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya Colony. Whether this hastened independence or not is debated. Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In India's case, there was a relatively long-running Indian independence movement (1857-1947). The Nationalist Movements in India helped form a relatively cohesive "Indian" identity out of the disparate populations of the British Raj. In Ireland's case, the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) was partly a result of the rise of Irish nationalism, partly a result of the Irish Home Rule movement (1870-1921) failing to fully achieve its goals, and partly dissatisfaction in Ireland over forced military service in World War I. The Conscription Crisis of 1918 show much of the Irish population unite in opposition to the military draft.:

"Completely ineffectual as a means to bolster battalions in France, the events surrounding the Conscription Crisis were disastrous for the Dublin Castle authorities, and for the more moderate nationalist parties in Ireland. The delay in finding a resolution to the home rule issue, partly caused by the war, and exaggerated by the Conscription Crisis in Ireland, all increased support for Sinn Féin." Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't Louis, Count of Soissons ever marry or have any legitimate children?

Why didn't Louis, Count of Soissons ever marry or have any legitimate children? He got killed at age 37 and thus had plenty of time to get married and have legitimate children but never did. He also had an illegitimate son a year before he was killed, so it's unlikely that he was gay.

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My fist thought is that according to our article "around 1610, he and Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier, were joined in contractual marriage", although that disagrees with the German Wikipdia article. If the German version (and hence your assumption) is correct: As a Prince of the Blood, he did not have too many candidates of appropriate rank, and most of his attempts seem to have failed. He did apparently try for the kings sister, and for Marie de Bourbon, and was foiled by Richelieu for political reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not marry a noblewoman of lower rank if he couldn't marry a princess, though? I mean, the Bourbon-Vendome branch was notable for marrying nobility. For instance, the wives of James I, Count of La Marche, John I, Count of La Marche, Louis, Count of Vendome, John VIII, Count of Vendome, Henri I, Prince of Conde, Henri II, Prince of Conde, Louis, Grand Conde et cetera all came from the French nobility. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most gay men were married with children, back in the day. Eg Philippe I, Duke of Orléans.

Some, certainly, but not I'm not sure about "most." For instance, Frederick the Great was likely gay and yet he never had any children. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick was married. Marriage was not a love affair, and offspring were expected. Gay men would be given the same instruction as women: "close you eyes and think of England"/do your duty. So: most. Gem fr (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, he probably wasn't, but that is just irrelevant anyway.

Gay men, even if married, didn't have illegitimate children. I just wanted to point that out. Philip I, Duke of Orleans never had illegitimate children--likely because having sex with his wives was hard enough for him and thus he didn't want to have sex with any other women. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I think he probably wasn't gay Gem fr (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely that gay men never had illegitimate children even if I'll give it was unlikely to be common and the current general understanding of gay as being exclusively or almost exclusively attracted to men. The acceptance of being gay varied from place to place and time to time. In situations where it was poorly accepted, maintaining a mistress may have bee one way to maintain cover. Especially in cases where who you married had little to do with any personal feelings or wants. And while the relationship may have been mostly for show, some sex may have been a necessary part of the process. Likewise while taking a mistress may have often been mostly about sexual desires, it seems likely in some cases there would have been a political angle. Also while I mentioned mistresses, a person could have illegitimate children with someone who wouldn't generally be called a mistress anyway. E.g. a slave they raped a few times. Possibly involving some combination of these, rejecting an "offer" of a female "companion" may have been problematic for some. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. He obviously hold grudges to Richelieu. 2. As a Prince of blood, he needed permission from the king (in effect: from Richelieu) to marry. Now do the math Gem fr (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good point. I checked the Wikipedia article for Gaston, Duke of Orleans (Soissons's cousin and co-conspirator) and Louis XIII and Richelieu didn't allow him (Gaston) to get re-married until Louis XIII was on his deathbed and Gaston begged him for forgiveness. Thus, the same might have been true for Soissons. Of course, Soissons didn't actually live long enough to ask Louis XIII for forgiveness, but it is nevertheless interesting to wonder if he would have indeed done this had he lived. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was in love with a beautiful blonde once. She drove him to drink. For that, he was forever in her debt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Futurist110 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He never said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- I'm afraid that Baseball_Bugs is paraphrasing a classic W.C. Fields quote... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Frederick was married" Yes, but his military campaigns often required him and his wife Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel-Bevern to live apart from each other.: "In 1763, when Frederick saw his wife for the first time in six years, he only commented: "Madame has grown quite fat." "Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement does two things: (1) Countering the statement that he never married; and (2) probably explaining why he didn't have children. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus Histories Volume II

I have a copy of Herodotus - Histories Volume II. It is a first edition print of the publication from 1910. Can anyone give vague value on this. Its a great book and well worth a read. Its in hard cover, and beautiful though it may need some restoration to make it ideal for sale. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

$18.69 (1927 edition, good condition) to $99 (1862 edition, "Antique with lots of wear.") based on e-bay. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Herodotus+Histories+Volume+II&_sacat=0 41.165.67.114 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pont del Diable chapel?

In the article bridge chapel, someone has added Pont del Diable in the list of examples. It certainly has a small chapel-like structure on the central span and it's dedicated to Sant Bartomeu, but I can't find a reference that says it is (or was) an actual place of worship. Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chapel in 1879/1882, per this traveller, "...immediately above the keystone of the central arch is a stone lodge, through which the roadway becomes but a narrow passage, for on each side are stone seats. In the wall of this lodge are two inscribed tablets..." (giving the dates of construction and repair) and this traveller, "On the summit is a sort of portico...". 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. found an image of the interior of the modern reconstruction - definitely not a chapel. Doesn't even have the benches the 1879 person mentioned. pic here 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

July 11

When did land travel become extremely popular?

When did land travel become extremely popular? For instance, here is a scenario for you--let's say that someone wants to get from Marseille/Marseilles to Dunkirk/Dunkerque (both of which are located in France nowadays). Nowadays the best way to do this would probably be by land--either by car or by train--or, alternatively, by plane/air. 100 years ago, the best way to do this would have probably still been by land--especially considering that air travel doesn't appear to have been an option yet 100 years ago. However, what about 200 years ago or 300 years ago or 400 years ago or 500 years ago? Would one have still traveled on land--either on horseback or by carriage--back then or would one have traveled by sea to get from Marseilles to Dunkirk back then?

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top of head answer: this is going to depend a lot on the development of a road system in a particular country. Clear back in Roman times, much of Europe actually had pretty good roads (and not much danger from brigands), but for over a millennium that steadily deteriorated, bottoming out in different places, from what I've read, anywhere between the 16th & 19th centuries (when depends on where).

Were any countries able to quickly revive and restore their road systems after the collapse of the Roman Empire--perhaps within a time-frame of a couple of centuries? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, especially in terms of the 19th century, don't forget canals. In many places, those were actually the best way to get around for a couple of generations before railways came in.

Were all canals actually navigable by boats and ships, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not by ocean-going ships unless the canal was built for that specific purpose, but there were canal boats. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Ocean was always a tough one, though, so from Marseille to Dunkirk, land travel would have won out a lot sooner than, say from Marseille to Venice or Dunkirk to Gdansk. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Also, what about from Bordeaux to Dunkirk? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "popular" are you talking about commerce or vacations? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Any form of travel, really. Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a function of economics to a great extent. If you look at the westward migration in America, much of it was driven by economic necessity. Demand drove the technology, and vice versa. Hence railroads, and more railroads; and then cars and highways, and more cars and more highways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Railways. At least in Europe. This began around 1830, with great expansion during the railway boom of the 1840s.

Before this, people didn't travel. For statistically significant proportions of "people" and "travel". Too awkward, too expensive, too little need to. Of course, some people travelled. A handful were carters, drovers etc. who travelled all the time, as an occupation. Some were business people, or their agents, who needed to travel between locations. Even the poor drifted slowly (usually on foot) in search of work. But travel was generally rare.

Canals pre-dated the roads, but didn't ever become a widespread means of passenger transport. Even the railways took a decade (or longer, depending how you count) before they started carrying passengers rather than coal (see Swansea and Mumbles Railway and the Stockton and Darlington Railway).

Roads were in a poor state and weren't improved enough to become a means of mass transport until after the railways. Although turnpikes had improved the process of road travel by the public stagecoaches rather earlier, even though it was still a rare thing to do.

Coastal sea travel was popular, although hazardous. Before the canals it was the standard way of moving heavy freight and the passenger traffic was in some ways a better way to travel than by road. However before the establishment of lighthouses, navigation close inshore was a far more dangerous business that sailing far out to sea, with much less risk of wreck. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has a lot to do with geography and development. I was a little surprised recently to discover how much travel, and particularly trade still depends on boats along the coastal areas of the Top End of the Northern Territory of my "advanced" country, Australia. Away from major highways, a lot of the roads are impassable in The Wet, so it makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a child, I loved documentaries on "exotic" Australia (commonly available through Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in the 1980s and 1990s). Most of them did mention that navigating Australia by land is either impossible or extremely dangerous, and that the country largely depends on ships and airplanes for transportation of people and goods. Has anything changed since then? Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land travels always were the main mean of transport, unless special case of relatively safe seafaring (Mediterranean or baltic/hanseatic travel, for instance), second only to inland waterways when available (but you have to pay the transport). eg: Camino de Santiago, silk road. Gem fr (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"especially considering that air travel doesn't appear to have been an option yet 100 years ago." Wrong premise. 100 years ago translates to 1919. Airlines had already been established, starting with DELAG (1909-1935), Aircraft Transport and Travel (1916-1921), Deutsche Luft-Reederei (1917-1926), Aéropostale (1918-1933), KLM (1919-), Avianca (1919-), Handley Page Transport (1919-1924), Société Générale des Transports Aériens (1919-1933), and Compagnie des Messageries Aériennes (1919-1923). Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But hardly "popular"; many early passenger aircraft carried less than 6 passengers and the cost of a flight from London to Paris was £5, [11] at a time when a skilled worker earned less than £2 per week. [12] Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, passenger air travel was a fairly narrow niche market for people with cash to spend and willing to endure a significant degree of risk and/or discomfort, until the Boeing 247 was introduced in 1933 (soon followed by the Douglas DC-3 and others). I don't know anything about most of the companies mentioned in Dimadick's comment above, but the names of at least two of them ("Aéropostale" and "Compagnie des Messageries Aériennes") suggest that they were founded mainly to carry airmail -- one of the main commercial applications of airplanes in the 1918-1933 period. Also, passenger air travel didn't really begin to supplant transatlantic ocean liners until around 1960... AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ethnic group(s) lived in the St. Petersburg area before Peter I built it?

Which ethnic group(s) lived in the St. Petersburg area before Russian Tsar Peter the Great built it? Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrian Finns. See also Ingria, Izhorians and Votes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sure was a smart move by Peter I. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND

I have a problem with the artist Vito Bongiorno's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vito_Bongiorno the page has been inserted in draft for lack of sources

I have sources to add the credibility and importance of the artist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vito_Bongiorno

Can anyone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco devi (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francesco devi, since you already have sources I don't know how much help we can be here, but I've requested the friendly people at the Wikipedia Teahouse to come over and help you out. They're good at explaining processes. You can also go here and speak with them directly. Good luck, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco devi I saw the note at the Teahouse. I made some minor improvements to the article, but can't find English language coverage of the artist. Hopefully others who speak Italian can find some coverage about him such as biographical profiles that aren't just descriptions of his art. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London Magazine

Hi,

I don't think I've ever actually used Ref Desk before, so apologies if not within your remit.

I was hoping someone might have a London Magazine subscription or find somewhere else online to be able to see the full Jun-July 2005 copy the one with its headers given here, this pdf has a small fragment.

We're looking for the Lichtig review on Brian Howell - there's one source already but another would be needed to legitimately delete the current PROD.

Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, @Nosebagbear: Best place for that kind of thing is the resource exchange, which you will find filled with friendly and happy-to-help types with access to most sources any Wikipedian could ever need :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify a portrait with an inscription in Hebrew

A friend was given this portrait, made of brass. The subject is a bearded man and there is an inscription in Hebrew below the image. The back has a small "Made in Israel" stamp in English. My friend has no Jewish or Israeli connection at all. What does the inscription say, who is the man and what is his "claim to fame"? (I uploaded the photo to the Flickr site instead of here as I have no idea of the portrait's copyright status). Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my Hebrew's not the best, but the four letters in the second row say "Herzl" so I guess that's who it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of his quotes. "Im tirtzu, ain zo agada" or "If you will it, it is not a dream".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt, so it's basically an Israeli political icon. I will send the quote translation and bio article to my friend. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel, Theodor Herzl is considered a kind of visionary founding father. Considering he died in 1904, even before the Balfour declaration or the establishment of the British Mandate, he's not really a "political icon" in the sense of being directly implicated in the politics of the modern state of Israel, AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Brady Bunch type of situation

Let's say that we have a Brady Bunch type of situation: mother has three biological daughters; father has three biological sons; mother and father marry to create a blended family of six children / step-children. My question: by this marriage, does the father have any "legal rights" to the three daughters? Is he legally their "father"? Or is he simply their "step-father"? And do any "legal rights" attach to the the role of "step-father"? So, for example, are the three step-daughters considered "heirs" of the step-father? Or, upon the father's death, he has only three heirs -- his three biological sons -- plus the wife (if she survives him)? If the step-father wants the "full legal rights" (as relates to the three step-daughters), does he have to actually legally adopt the three step-daughters? I was wondering about this sort of thing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee this is going to vary by country/state. Matt Deres (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. I am referring to the USA. Which I thought was implicit in the question, since I was referring to the character of Mike Brady in the Brady Bunch scenario. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is still going to vary by state. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's obvious. I am not seeking a 50-state analysis. I am seeking generalities. Or examples. Again, I thought obvious. Guess I need to spell out all minutiae, when I ask a question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "I am referring to the USA" that is not minutia. Again there is no way to generalize since it is going to vary by state. I'd have thought that was obvious. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we have here an American who is unaware of the global reach of great American exports like The Brady Bunch. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You all got even by sending us Jacko. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a very specific character (Mike Brady) in a very specific TV show (The Brady Bunch). Implicit in all of that is the USA. What did you infer from the question, that I was asking about the state of affairs in Pakistan or Gabon? Seriously? On a side note, isn't the public education system in the USA simply wonderful? Never ceases to amaze us all. Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, in general, step- have no right nor obligation to each other, and are considered strangers for legal purpose. But they will have indirect obligations through the spouse link, or the fact that, say, they are those with property rights of the home; all this may even be part of a marriage contract, which certainly can provide some "you will take care of my previous children as if yours" clause. This is really general, and local statutes may have different views, as pointed out by Matt Deres. Gem fr (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gem fr. But, Gem fr, it's gonna vary by state. Didn't you know that? So, why give any answers at all to the original question? Because, you know, it's gonna vary by state. (As if the "varies by state" theme is dispositive of the issue.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with the rules for license plate numbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in For the first time in New York, non-biological parents have legal rights. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have Stepfamily#Legal_status, sourced to this, an American resource. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a fictional family, anything can happen. In practice, there's the matter of whether the step-parents adopt the kids, and such as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, actual answer. Joseph A. Spadaro, of course it varies but state, but what you're looking for are state-level statutes usually named something like "Intestate Succession". As usual, I will use California as an example, which has relevant statutes in sections 6100 - 6806 of the Probate Code. It is made very clear in Division 6, Part 2, Chapter 1, that inheritance priority is given to the spouse and issue of the decedent, and not step-children. Only if the decedent has not stated who inherits, and has no surviving issue, parents, spouse, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or first-cousins are the step-children entitled by statute to inheritance. However, at this point we have to make sure we know how the State of California defines "issue". Sections 21101 - 21118 make it clear by exception that stepchildren are not automatically included in the group "issue", but children may be. So how does California define "children"? This is provided in Chapter 2, which shows that it is normally required that a child be natural (with some exceptions), or be legally adopted. Of course the exceptions have exceptions and the howevers have howevers, and an exception is made for stepchildren that had a parent-child relationship with their stepparent that began during the child's minor years, and "It is established by clear and convincing evidence that the foster parent or stepparent would have adopted the person but for a legal barrier." So short of adoption, there is that one narrow hole through which an unadopted stepchild could potentially claim full inheritance rights of a child. This same statute also explicitly recognizes but does not define the common law concept of "equitable adoption" (also known as adoption by estoppel, virtual adoption, and de facto adoption). This is essentially the adoption version of common law marriage, where a court may recognize as an adopted child someone whom the decedent had been treating as his child. What that means, unfortunately you can't just look it up in a statute, but there are court decisions and law review articles you could look up on it, of course varying by state once again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any parties more left than >50% their electorate with conservative in their name?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wot? Gem fr (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When did they stop making piers longer on Manhattan?

The newest and outermost layer that's about 800 feet long and touching the pierhead line allowed by the Army Corps of Engineers, not the long gone ones from centuries ago that are now inside the ring road (West Side Highway/West Street/South Street etc).

When did they start filling in the water between some of them or removing piers? The piers follow a regular spacing and some have been removed (condemned for rotting?) while in other places the land was extended and stuff built on the new land like buildings, parks and so on. Even entire neighborhoods like Battery Park City. I know they started doing this by the Great Depression. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dry and wet colors

Nobody bothers to classify colors this way, but I find it natural to think that while yellow (the variant that's the color of many diamond-shaped road signs in the United States) is dry, fluorescent yellow-green (which in recent years has replaced yellow on some school-related signs) is wet. Any precise definition of a wet color. (Please look at the difference between the colors before you respond.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]