Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • 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.

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.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

April 14[edit]

Mary E. Hart[edit]

I tried asking this at Talk:Pacific Coast Women's Press Association, but it's been roughly a week without an answer, so I thought I'd try here.

Mrs Mary E Hart in Arctic costume, circa 1909 (AL+CA 2915).jpg

I'm wondering whether there were two well-known people named Mary E. Hart and conflates them, or whether there was only one and this article [that is, Pacific Coast Women's Press Association] has her death date (and possibly her birth date) wrong. Got interested because of the photo I've thumbed here, which I'm trying to give appropriate categories on Commons. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

William D. Hyder, the author of the holabirdamericana article does not seem an unreliable source: books. He cites the Los Angeles Times, March 10, 1921, p. 115 for is own reference. By some trick of the attention I first memorized 1916 as Hyder's date given for Mary E. Hart death but 1916 was the referred date of losing track of the M.E. Hart Company instead. Maybe were you following a similar line of thought as I did, Hyder seems to be trying to come near proving an opinion that the company was the lady, but he may be underestimating things like the generation gap (Charbneau being born in 1883). An easier to follow narrative of W.D. Hyder's research is to be found in this article, under "candidate #2". --Askedonty (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 00:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The source of 6 million as the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust[edit]

I know that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust is 6 million, and that the number of Jewish children is 1.5 million. What is the original source of these numbers? (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no single wartime document that serves as the direct source for these numbers. While the Nazis initially kept comprehensive records of the killings, in the final years of the war this record-keeping broke down, and much of the existing documentation was deliberately destroyed. In order to estimate the death toll, scholars rely on a variety of different sources, including census records, archives, and postwar investigations. You can find more information here: [1] CataracticPlanets (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the question is, where did the number six million originate and how did it become widely accepted as the number of Jews murdered?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear, it's not widely accepted as the number, it's widely accepted as the best approximate estimate that can be made of the number, pending further evidence and re-analyses. The actual number can probably never be known, given that there are no comprehensive records either of the murders (and other deaths resulting indirectly from their perpetration), or of the populations from whom the victims came, or of the numbers of survivors from those populations. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
For our overview, see The_Holocaust#Death_toll. HenryFlower 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
'The number seems to have first been mentioned by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, an Austrian-born official in the Third Reich and a trained historian who served in a number of senior positions in the SS... he described a conversation he had had with Eichmann, the SS official who had principal responsibility for the logistics of the Jewish genocide, in Budapest in August 1944. In the 1961 testimony, Hoettl recalled how “Eichmann … told me that, according to his information, some 6,000,000 Jews had perished until then -- 4,000,000 in extermination camps and the remaining 2,000,000 through shooting by the Operations Units and other causes, such as disease, etc”'. From Holocaust Facts: Where Does the Figure of 6 Million Victims Come From?, Haaretz, January 2019. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Marriage officiants in the United States/Marriage locations in the United States[edit]

Following a question on marriages that I asked her last month, some more questions came into my mind:

1. How and why did it become common in the United States for non-religious or political figures (meaning, for lack of a better term, "an average Joe") to officiate marriages? And why hasn't similar practices caught on in most of the world? Asking because in most of the world, usually only authorized people (usually government officials or religious leaders) are allowed to officiate weddings, unlike in the US where, depending on the state, practically anyone can officiate a legally-binding wedding.

2. How and why did it become common in the United States to hold wedding ceremonies in pretty much any kind of place? And how come similar leniency in the kinds of permitted event venues is more uncommon outside the US? Given that in most of the world, legally-binding weddings tend to only be allowed to take place either at a government office, a place of worship, or an event hall, unlike in the US where there have been cases of getting married in places like backyards/homes/restaurants/farms and so on.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe it has its roots in separation of church and state. US law used English law as a starting point, and over here, the Church of England as the established church had a monopoly on the registration of marriages until the Marriage Act 1836, a system which the newly independent colonists were determined to avoid. Can't find a reference to support that at the moment though. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, while separation of church and state (and indeed secularism) has become a fairly common concept in much of the world, it seems that the things I mentioned above are a predominantly US-centric phenomenon. Indeed, in most of Europe, the only legally-binding marriages are those performed at a government office, and the "DIY wedding" style that is commonly seen in the US appears to be uncommon if not virtually non-existent outside of Scotland (where such weddings are legal); similar laws are also in place in other parts of the world. We do have an article on Humanist celebrant, which seems to partly discuss "Humanist weddings" (which are legal in only a handful of countries in the world), and even then, I'm not sure if the "DIY wedding" counts as a humanist one. So why haven't such practices caught on in the rest of the world, even in secular societies? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's take it from the other side. As an American the idea that the government can tell me where I can or can't get married seems hideously controlling. It reeks of an inappropriate invasion of my personal life. It runs counter to the very ideal of personal liberty. As for officiants, as long as the proper paperwork is filled out and duly processed (which would include formal notarization, which is easy to achieve), why would anyone care if I have a priest officiate or get my DM from my D&D group to do it? --Khajidha (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
IMO the OP is overplaying the US-centric bit. In Malaysia for example, it's possible for some religious officials to officiate marriages. However given the nature of religious freedom in Malaysia and other factors it's limited and there's no also no concept of an independent celebrant. So a lot of marriages happen at the registry office. [2] [3] But this doesn't mean the registry office part is seen as the cornerstone of the marriage. I mean sure it's an important part of the marriage and the only way to make it official but I think it's often also just seen as part of getting the bureaucratic paperwork done to make it official. Plenty of weddings happen after the official recognition in a variety of manners and culturally these are often seen as the most important part and indication the couple are actually married. Note that as somewhat illustrated by the Quaker example below, the idea of having someone officiate a wedding is hardly a universal concept anyway. AFAIK, in traditional Chinese marriages it often doesn't really exist. There are a variety of customs which symbolise the marriage such as Chinese tea culture#Tea drinking customs [4], but the idea of having some person officiate just isn't part of it. While modern customs are often influenced by Western traditions and may include things like rings, I'm not sure if having a celebrant or officiant is a key part for many non religious Chinese weddings happening outside the West (e.g. China, Taiwan, HK, Singapore, Malaysia). For Chinese Christians and similar, it obviously may be. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding who can be a marriage officiate, see this link, which gives answers for each of the 50 states; glancing through it, it appears that most states require a non-governmenal marriage officiate to be a minister or priest or affiliated with a religious organization. At the top of that page it says Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages — the grant of authority is valid for one day — and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day. [bolding added by me]. This fits with what I recall: Some secular humanist organizations have sued some states to allow non-clergy officiates or have lobbied to change the law in order to permit it. Another list is here — this says that in Colorado Couples themselves may solemnize their own marriage. Loraof (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Our marriage officiant article lists the countries where these practices occur: Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, UK (Scotland only), and USA (some states only). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Loraof, the link you gave doesn't really give the full picture, though. For example, for my state (North Carolina) it says "Any ordained minister of any faith who is authorized to perform marriages by his church may do so." But, it is exceptionally easy to become ordained. NC law does not specify a list of faiths recognized for this purpose. Here's a website where basically anyone can become an "ordained minister": A friend of mine has done this in the past and officiated at another friend's wedding here in NC. Really, the important part is the second sentence from the NC listing at your link: "ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the register of deeds who issued it." It's the filing of the form with the register of deeds that really matters.--Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Your third sentence, "But, it is exceptionally easy to become ordained." is, I think, the important one. As I discussed in the previous question, it's dead simple to arrange for a humanist officiant to solemnize your wedding in Canada - just as easy as it is in the US. The tricky part is in becoming a registered officiant. The quickest course of action I found will take me a year plus to achieve (there are quicker ways, but there are substantial costs), whereas in many US states, the entire thing takes literally seconds online. It's somewhat ironic that a country so leery of atheists and agnostics should be this way; it's like, "We don't care if you treat your religion as a joke - so long as you have one!" kind of mentality. Matt Deres (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
" it's like, "We don't care if you treat your religion as a joke - so long as you have one!" kind of mentality." Congratulations, you have just successfully summed up the collective American attitude to religion.--Khajidha (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
This is something effectively forced by the First Amendment via the courts. First Amendment jurisprudence says as long as you meet a few basic tests, a government can't say your religion "isn't a real religion" and deny you a benefit available to other religions. Hence, you get things like John Oliver creating a "real" "fake" church as a publicity stunt. -- (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, all of the more well-established religions are afraid that if they push to exclude these new faiths that the laws may eventually be used against them as well. A Baptist might think that a humanist wedding isn't "real" but won't push to legislate against it because a Catholic might later move to exclude Baptists as well. They couldn't even fall back on the idea of "only Christian weddings", because they would then have to deal with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Messianic Jews, etc that the Baptists (and Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc) might exclude but are large enough to cause problems with the implementation of such a policy. Heck, some might not even consider other branches of their own sect to be "Christian". --Khajidha (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
In NZ it's a little different. I don't think it necessarily takes a year to become an independent celebrant nor does it cost a great deal. (Although it's not free. It's expected you can make up for the costs by charging a reasonable fee for your services if you wish.) But still there's a difference from the practice from a number of US states and maybe elsewhere in that it also isn't something intended for any random person. Definitely it's not something you can do just because you want to officiate the marriage of one of your friends. You're supposed to be providing a service to the community [5] [6]. Note however it isn't a rare thing either. In fact most marriages in NZ are performed by independent celebrants not religious ones nor registry offices ones, see the 2015 figures in Marriage in New Zealand#Marriage Celebrants and note also that Humanist celebrants would generally be organisational celebrants. (So those aren't all really religious either.) As mentioned in the article on marriages in NZ, NZ also has a special exception for Quakers (and only them) which allows their marriages to be performed without a celebrant [7] Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Since I didn't see this mentioned, I thought I would. Many religious officiants will refuse to preside over the marriage ceremony of a mixed marriage. And I use the term "mixed" to mean people of different religions. My father and mother went through similar problems because my father was not Catholic while my mother was. The priest refused to marry them in the main church. They had to be married in a smaller chapel. †dismas†|(talk) 23:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That actually touches on an interesting point which also relates to separation of church and state. In countries which still have state churches, the question arises whether and when the state church should be allowed to deny a marriage which the state itself allows. The Church of Denmark is an interesting example here since as I understand it, they're legally required to allow Same-sex marriage in Denmark in their churches. Although individual priests can refuse to perform the ceremony someone has to be found to replace them [8]. The church themselves are fine with it (although obviously not everyone in Denmark [9] [10]) but many overseas, especially US, right wing Christian commentators or groups made a fuss over it, sometimes years late, [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] but as mention in that blog, what they seem to have missed is that part of the reason this arose is because it's a state church. P.S. I'm aware of WP:ELNEVER but felt since the Youtube channel seems to really belong to a producer working for the channel, they hopefully know what they're doing and received the necessary permission to upload it to Youtube [16] [17] Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What were Vienna's ethnic and/or linguistic demographics in 1910?[edit]

What were Vienna's ethnic and/or linguistic demographics in 1910? Futurist110 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nice article in the German wikipedia [18]. According to that article, total population in 1910 was 2.083 million. Around 1900, 49% of the city's population was estimated to have been born outside the city. Of these, 22% came from Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia; 15% from Lower Austria; and 4% from other regions in what is now Austria. The remainder were from other regions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. No specific word about languages spoken, but obviously, there were a lot of Czech speakers, and probably also of Hungarian and various other Slavic languages. --Xuxl (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC) has an account of the evolution of size of Jewish community compared with growth of overall urban population. 2,031,498 residents of Vienna in 1910, out of whom 175,318 were Jewish. --Soman (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
here you find 1910 census data --Soman (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What was Boston's Non-Hispanic Black percentage in 2010?[edit]

The article for Boston gives the Black percentage for its total population in 2010, but I'm not interested in the entire Black population. Rather, I am only interested in Boston's Non-Hispanic Black population (some Blacks are Hispanic--hence the article Black Hispanic and Latino Americans).

Does anyone here know what Boston's Non-Hispanic Black percentage (out of Boston's total population) was in 2010? Futurist110 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, in addition to asking this question about Boston, I would also like to ask this question about Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Futurist110 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The United States Census Bureau does not tabulate that data as you ask for. I'm not sure if there are any other sources for that information, but the Census doesn't break out non-Hispanic Black population from Hispanic Black Population separately. --Jayron32 13:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a shame. I mean, it's possible that the Social Explorer ( would have separate US Census data for this, but one would likely have to pay money to get access to this data and I am certainly unwilling to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Is there even such a thing as flying water tankers?[edit]

Is there even such a thing as flying water tankers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump is probably thinking of Aerial firefighting aircraft.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Yes, see Aerial firefighting. Obviously he also thinks that in a backward place like France, the professional firefighters of the country's capital city would not have considered the possibility and assessed the practicality of such an approach without the advice of a foreign polymath like himself </snark>.
For those puzzled by the correction, it relates to a remark the US President made earlier today concerning the currently ongoing disastrous fire here. {The poster formerly known as 87.981.230.195} (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's give Trump some credit for at least caring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Along with at least 15 (and counting) other Heads of State already listed in the article (linked by Akld guy below). It would be remarkable if he hadn't said something, but I doubt if any of the others proffered firefighting advice. However, I think we've now answered the OP's query and don't need to pursue this sideline any further.
By the way, kudos to all those responsible for getting up an excellent article in under six hours. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP's point aside, the problem is when "caring" means you override the opinions and plans of experts who actually understand how to fight fires. Even when you're not making the fire worse or damaging stuff (as according to most experts, would have happened here), you're still at a minimum wasting resources and diverting attention. See for example this blog post [19] quoting this old story [20]. (And before the MAGA crowd gets hot under the collar note that while the blog post is in reference to the tweet, the LA Times story it relies upon is from before even the Obama presidency so clearly nothing to do with being anti-Trump.) Since the fire was in Paris, this wasn't a risk here from Trump. And to be fair I think it's rarely something any US president does simply because they don't get involved at that level especially as a lot of fire fighting is on state land anyway and under their purview. But it does illustrate why "caring" can be harmful if it results in more than dumb tweets. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Frank: "Do something! Anything!" Hawkeye: "I agree with Frank. Let's do anything!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Or switching from M*A*S*H to Yes, Prime Minister... Sir Arnold: "He's suffering from Politician's Logic." Sir Humphrey: "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it." -- (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Notre-Dame de Paris fire <-- link to the fire article. Akld guy (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump does seem to show an interest in fires. Perhaps we should put his comments on the Notre Dame fire together with his ones about that the Finns controlling forest fires by raking their forests clear ;-) Make America Rake Again Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It could be worse. Imagine if we had passed the Arnold Amendment. Elon Musk might have become president, and right now he could be calling the French firefighters pedophiles because they didn't like his flying tanker suggestion. Or submarine tanker, as the case may be. (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Experts deride Trump's Notre Dame firefighting advice as 'risible': "Releasing even one load from a Canadair water bomber used to fight forest fires on Notre Dame would be “the equivalent of dropping three tonnes of concrete at 250 kilometres per hour (155mph)” on” the ancient monument". Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Did any monarchies have age limits for inheriting?[edit]

What happens to the line of the guy who was skipped for age reasons? Can they get it back later? I can see why they invented regents. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You answered your own question. As far as I know, hereditary monarchies go in a strict order of succession. If the next in line is too young to competently rule, a regent is appointed to act on his (and it usually was a he) behalf. The regent would only be a caretaker, not the actual ruler. Regents could be replaced. And regents were disempowered when the monarch came of age. --Khajidha (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Elective monarchies tend to have age limits. A prince of Andorra cannot be younger than an 18, as that is the age of candidacy for the office of President of France (an ex-officio prince). The other prince is the Bishop of Urgell, who has to be at least 35 to become a bishop. As far as I can tell, there is no minimum age for papacy as, technically, any Catholic male can be elected. Hereditary monarchies do not have age limits. One can become a king at birth (e.g. John I of France, Alfonso XIII of Spain, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the story on Swaziland's monarchy? GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the Pope have to be made a bishop before becoming Pope, if he is not a bishop already? That would seem to make the minimum age for the papacy the same as for any bishopric. --Khajidha (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
A newly elected Pope is made a priest and bishop if he is not already. I'm no expert on canon law, but I would expect the election by the College of Cardinals to override any age limits.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
For reference: Papal conclave § Acceptance and proclamation. The ecclesiastical office held by the Pope is simply "Bishop of Rome", so this makes sense: the person is elected bishop and therefore becomes one even if not already one. -- (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Technically, any male Catholic can be elected Pope. They need to be a priest in order to be installed as Pope (i.e. actually take the job), but the order of events doesn't matter, so long as everything is done before they take the job. Which is to say, one could get elected Pope first, then be ordained as a priest, then be installed as the Bishop of Rome (which is the actual job one takes as Pope). I can't think of anyone that happened to recently (as in for several centuries) in that particular order, but it is possible, in the list of dozens and dozens of Popes, that it happened that way a few times in the past. In terms of current tradition, generally Cardinals always choose one from among their own number, and basically all cardinals were bishops when elevated to the College of Cardinals. (Note on terminology: Within the College of Cardinals are three ranks: Cardinal Bishop, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon. These ranks are distinct from the roles of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon within the clergy of the Catholic Church, and all modern Cardinals were Bishops when elevated. Terminology can be confusing). The important distinction here is what are the College of Cardinals legally bound to do and What do the College of Cardinals always do. They are not legally restricted on whom they can elect Pope, by the rules of the conclave. In practical terms, they are always going to elect a current Cardinal as pope, AND in practical terms, all Cardinals were already Bishops. In this way, the conclave mirrors the historical Prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire. Legally, they were free to elect anyone they wanted as Emperor. What they did just about every time was just confirm the scion of the Habsburg Dynasty as the next emperor. --Jayron32 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
So was the election of Pope Joan valid, but her installation not? (as she could not have been a priest). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
To quote the very article you cite "most modern scholars regard it as fictional." I think nothing more relevant could be said on the subject.--Jayron32 02:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See also tanist, where the heir is chosen from among eligible dynasts who were of age. (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be about minimum ages. Is there a maximum age? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Good question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently not in Britain. We have some material on that situation here. Chuck would be the oldest if/when he ever gets the fancy chair. Matt Deres (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A little discourse on the history of European monarchies in general may be in order here. We tend to get the sense that more modern monarchies tended to be elective, while more ancient monarchies had strict inheritance rules, perhaps because of our sense that democracy is a more enlightened government system than absolutism, but historically it worked the other way around. For most of what we call the Middle Ages, and especially in the Early Middle Ages, most European Monarchies were elective in nature. When the prior monarch died, some sort of conclave or meeting of all of the important nobility in the realm met and had an election to select the new monarch. Whether it was the moot, the thing, the witan, or whatever it was called at the time and place, these advisory boards of local nobles functioned as the parliament of the day, and one of their most important functions was to elect a new King when the old one died. These elections were, as one suspects, often corrupt and often disputed, and as a result there were frequent fights over who the results of these elections, often breaking out into frequent civil wars. We see this in the history of most European countries in their early history. The notion of primogeniture was an innovation 12th-13th centuries or later. It started out with kings getting their eldest sons elected in their own lifetimes (see, for one example, Henry the Young King from British history) so that the succession would be secure. Overtime, these elections just stopped as the notion of absolute monarchy took hold, and the role of these advisory boards and parliaments simply went away. It became assumed that the eldest son (or next heir, however defined locally by law if the eldest son didn't exist) would simply inherit the role of King, and coincidentally Kings started either ignoring their parliaments, or simply stopped calling them. The notion that Kings would be bound by law of any sort had to be re-introduced to European politics through revolt and revolution over the several centuries of the early modern period. AFAIK, the situation described by the OP, where there was some sort of statutory limit on what age someone could be in order to become Monarch, has never existed, at least in the European tradition. Either the King was elected freely by the parliament of the realm, or the King simply passed his throne on to his next heir, or sometimes named his own successor if not to be the expected heir. Age has never come into it. --Jayron32 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Where's the button to upvote Jayron's answer? —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Seima-Turbino genetics[edit]

What haplogroups are associated with this migration? déhanchements (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Relevant article: Seima-Turbino phenomenon (but no answer there) —2606:A000:1126:28D:4C9F:5854:38AB:65A9 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like they may fit under the umbrella of Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA).
Source 1: The time and geographic range of the Seima-Turbino migrations coincide with the dating and geographic range of haplogroup N1b (N-P43Ö, however haplogroup N1b is estimated to be about 4000 years old, and spread northwards and westwards from Southern Siberia exactly the same time and same way as the Seima-Turbino migrations did.
Source 2: Taken together, these facts hint at the Seima-Turbino metalsmith-traders as the probable primary carriers of hg N3a3’6 lineages. (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I notice that in the article Seima-Turbino phenomenon linked by the first responder above, the article's lede is a word-for-word copy of the first paragraph of Section 1 immediately following. Perhaps someone with a better formal grasp of the subject than myself (who had never heard of it before now) would like to rewrite the lede to better summarise the whole article? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Politics vs Political Science[edit]

Hey all! I am definitely someone who should know better, but what is the specific difference between Politics and Political Science? I get that Political Science is just the study of politics, but doesn't that overlap with itself since Politics is just the process by which government resources are allocated? I must be missing something here. Kindest Regards, –MJLTalk 23:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In the same way that a historian is not a soldier, a political scientist is not a politician. A politician's job is to pretend to represent the interests of his constituents, which requires campaigning, debating, lobbying, negotiating and legislating. The political scientist does not need to do these things, and therefore does not need to be any good at them. His job is to study politics while applying the scientific method, in the interest of learning how and why certain outcomes occur, in the interest of creating simplified models that allow future outcomes to be predicted. It would absolutely make sense for a politician to employ a political scientist as an adviser, since while it's still the politician who has to be good at politics, the political scientist can let him know how similar things have gone in the past and which variables seem to be important. Back to the analogy, there is a reason that military academies teach history. Our articles will be separate because articles about political science will be about the tools and methods used by political scientists. That is, those articles will be about how politics is studied. Whereas articles on politics, while many of the sources will be written by political scientists, are simply about what politics are and have been. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thank you so much for that answer! I suppose I was a bit confused since I am both a politician and a political science major. This response really helped me put that into deeper perspective. They really are two seperate things when you put it like that! :) –MJLTalk 00:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the difference between the parliamentary system and the presidential system is an example of a topic in political science, that a poli sci major might study. A politician on the other hand would mostly care about the system they were actually working in. Maybe that also helps convey the idea. (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

The Historical Vikings[edit]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I was wondering if there are first hand accounts of people who interacted with the vikings. I have seen much literature on the subject, but most of these stories seem from either second-hand sources, archeological findings or even flat-out rumors. I would like to read about them in a first hand account from the time when they still existed as vikings. Sources in other languages are okay: I speak German, Greek, Latin, some Spanish, a bit French and some Arabic (although I have to admit that I have not spoken it in years).

Thank you very much for yours answers!--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:D43D:F270:18DE:3724 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First hand accounts are going to present a bit of a language issue unless you're actually fluent in the medieval versions of those languages, though I guess Latin is fine then. Coming in at the very tail end of the Viking age there is Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, which includes an extensive first-hand account of contemporary Scandinavian culture. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle also contains contemporary accounts of Viking interactions with England. I would recommend looking through Category:Sources on Germanic paganism, Category:Danish chronicles, and similar Scandinavian chronicle categories. These categories are not limited to the Vikings or the Viking age, but some of articles within are about documents written by historians who might have directly interacted with Vikings. Someguy1221 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much, Someguy1221!--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:7443:7455:66DD:2543 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of sources from medieval France about interacting with Vikings (they wandered all over France almost as much as they did in England). They're all in Latin because no one wrote in French at the time. Abbo Cernuus is one example, he was present at the Viking Siege of Paris. The Chronicle of Nantes also talks a lot about Viking raids in Brittany. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam Bishop! I am going to take a look at them!--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:7443:7455:66DD:2543 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Fadlan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thank you!--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:8CD2:348A:D4A6:48C2 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That is cool, they even made a (not very good) movie out of it, The 13th Warrior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hegesias of Cyrene[edit]

Good Day

I have read the wiki article about Hegesias of Cyrene and was wondering if it is possible to read contemporary comments from his peers or students about him and his works. I have also heard that a bishop in the later Roman period tried to find parts of his works but was apparently only able to find parts of it through other sources. If you have the name of the bishop and the name of his work about Hegesias, please let me now, because I have not found his name so far.

Thank you most kindly--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:D43D:F270:18DE:3724 (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Per this source, no writings of Hegesias of Cyrene (c. 290 BC) or his fellow philosophers of the Cyrenaic school have survived, so what you are looking for no longer exists. Everything we know about them is from people writing centuries later, but unfortunately the sources those people used have not survived. The three main such sources are:
  • Sextus Empiricus (c. 180 AD) in Against the Professors VII. Greek and Latin versions are available at [21]. (NB for your search: The overall book is sometimes also called Against the Mathematicians and part VII is sometimes also called Against the Logicians.)
  • Plutarch (c. 100 AD) in Against Colotes. I can't find this online but maybe a library?
  • Diogenes Laertius (c. 250 AD) in Lives of the Philosophers, Book 2 (available at Wikisource.). (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This is amazing! Thank you most kindly!--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:7443:7455:66DD:2543 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You are very welcome! and I hope you enjoy your reading. (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I will, thank you!--2A02:120B:2C17:3CA0:8CD2:348A:D4A6:48C2 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Which Bruce Henderson??[edit]

Look at a recent edit to Daryl Bem. It mentions someone named Bruce Henderson. Wikipedia has an article titled Bruce Henderson, but then it has links to 2 other people with that name at a dis-ambiguation header. Which Bruce Henderson does the Daryl Bem article refer to?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

None of them. The article Daryl Bem says that particular Bruce Henderson is an "Ithaca College professor of communication studies, performance studies, and queer studies". Wikipedia has three articles on people named Bruce Henderson. The article titled Bruce Henderson is about a person who died in 1992, so could not have married Mr. Bem in 2015. Bruce Henderson (author) is not an "Ithaca College professor of communication studies, performance studies, and queer studies", but is instead a journalist and author out of California, so obviously not the same person. Bruce Ronald Henderson is a New Zealand-based person who seems to have founded a few putative micronations. Also not the same person. So, your Bruce Henderson is an entirely different person. Namely This Bruce Henderson. --Jayron32 13:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Mars simulation[edit]

I recall vaguely that several years ago, maybe 15-20 years ago there were several missions where people would be locked into sealed systems to simulate life on another planet and to see if they could live. The articles I read on the matter suggested that "...the doors will be locked for 10 years..." or something along those lines. What happened to these experiments? Were any of them a success or did they need to open the doors before time? Are they still in there? Did we all forget about them and neglect to unlock the doors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See Biosphere 2. The rest of your question sounds like a story that Ray Bradbury might have written. 07:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)MarnetteD|Talk
(ec) MARS-500, from 2007-2011, is one example, and there's a shorter and more recent one here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
MarnetteD I'm also reminded of the movie Blast from the Past. (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I like it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Brand seizing"[edit]

As Brandjacking means something different: How do you call it when a company acquires another with the motivation of taking over this company's brand name - as has happened e. g. in case of Worldpay? --KnightMove (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a really good question. Brands, as any asset with value, can be bought and sold, and are all the time. Many brands from the past and present were purchased, and the companies we know by those brands are not functionally the same as the historic company. More examples: Southwestern Bell, which purchased and renamed itself AT&T in 2005, the Atari brand name, which has been purchased and divided and parcelled out to several companies over history, Pan American Airways (disambiguation), etc. Not sure what the phenomenon is, but just wanted to give some example perhaps to help research a possible answer. --Jayron32 15:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The business concept of Goodwill has a bearing on this topic, as does the broader concept of Intangible assets. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There are instances where e.g. a fashion designer builds her name into a brand and then sells it. She is then no longer permitted to trade under that name (although she is permitted to make and sell clothes under her own name). 2A00:23A8:830:A600:3089:80E0:7D9B:95DA (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure it needs a specific name aside from "good business". --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This is hardly necessary, nor sufficient for good business. It's still rather an exception, isn't it? --KnightMove (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Didn't mean to imply that it was necessary or sufficient, only that it was a good business move and that a particular term (as opposed to a description) wwas not needed. Company A will simply acquire Brand B, just as they might acquire Patent C or Location D.--Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Khajidha: OK, my question was worded somewhat imprecisely: I mean that the acquring company takes over the aquired brand name in its entirety, abandonning its former brand name - therefore the example Worldpay. A similar, not exactly identical example from the same industry is Paysafe. --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It would seem that that would be an example of rebranding. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed - bu tin a very special way, for which no name seems to have been established?! --KnightMove (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the object depicted in this image called?[edit]

I knew it once, I think it starts with topo-. Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 18:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what it is called the Lochnagar article shows an old image of it but show the inscription on the top and says it was erected in 1924. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it a Survey marker? Or perhaps a triangulation station. --Viennese Waltz 19:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. In the picture I linked, placenames can be seen around the edge, so I believe the stone is meant to indicate the direction (and likely distance if inscribed) those places are from the stone (and thereby the peak). It is this functionality I was asking about, but it is helpful to know about this particular one too. Arlo James Barnes 19:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have seen several variations of such objects at various Scenic viewpoints in the UK and elsewhere. There certainly ought to be a name for them, but I haven't so far been able to think of or find one. I'll keep thinking and looking.
(Per Viennese Waltz – although such markers might be added to (or alongside) a UK Trig point, actual Ordnance Survey Trig points have a standardised design (including flush metal mountings on the top designed to support a theodolite, etc), which the OP's example does not exhibit.)
[Edited to add – ] Got it! @Arlo James Barnes: was right: we have an article at Toposcope (to which Topograph redirects). {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Do any US state constitutions require more than a majority vote to be amended?[edit]

Do any US state constitutions require more than a majority vote to be amended? Futurist110 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

[22] has all the methods to amend state constitutions. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You can search that link for "supermajority" to find the examples you want. Most states have multiple methods for amending the constitution so the most succinct answer that is still accurate would be, "some of them, some of the time." Someguy1221 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Futurist110 (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Have there been any other cases of naturalized citizens becoming classified as natural-born citizens?[edit]

I know that Maryland declared the Marquis de Lafayette to be a natural-born citizen in 1784; see here: Honorary citizenship of the United States#Legal issues. However, were there any other cases of naturalized citizens becoming classified as natural-born citizens of a particular state, territory, or country? Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand nationality law#History of New Zealand citizenship:

French and German settlers complained about their inability to acquire property in New Zealand, and so, from 1844, aliens in New Zealand were able to become ‘natural born subjects of Her Majesty [Queen Victoria]’ through proclamations by the governor (which would later be confirmed by ordinances)

But many countries don't really have the distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalised citizens that may exist in the US so your question is unclear anyway. AFAIK, there is absolutely no difference in the rights or privileges (including for any political office) in NZ between New Zealand citizenship by birth and New Zealand citizenship by grant. (AFAIK, the terms "natural born" and "naturalised" are not generally used in modern NZ citizenship legal parlance although naturalised will still apply for some people who acquired citizenship in the past.)

The only difference is for NZ citizens by descent who cannot pass on their citizenship in certain circumstances, although they can go through the same process to receive NZ citizenship by grant as anyone else. Note that NZ also eliminated guaranteed birthright citizenship in 2005.

If you want to stretch it, the only possible distinction between citizenship by grant and citizenship by birth I can think of in NZ is that it's possible citizenship by grant can be revoked (deprivation of citizenship) if you lied or willfully misheld information when applying for your citizenship and you likely wouldn't have been granted citizenship if the correct info was known. Also if a mistake was made and likewise.

The law doesn't allow this for citizenship by birth, but the concept doesn't make sense anyway since if the info which lead to your citizenship by birth is wrong then you're simply not a citizen by birth. The citizenship isn't being revoked because it simply doesn't exist. Likewise citizens by registration can have their citizenship revoked for the same reasons, but not citizens by descent.

Note anyone can have their citizenship revoked if they have some other citizenship and did something "acted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand".

Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of this information! Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Statistical chart for ranges[edit]

Well, of course, I do not even know the language I need to express myself. But, I'm looking for a chart/graph which allows for not just individual points but ranges across various points too.

For example:

Say I have a number of files from over a decade, some of which their precise year of origin is known, but in others, only an approximation is. Something like one from 1950, two from 1954, three from (somewhere between) 1953–1956), two from 1958, and one from (somewhere between) 1951–1959, and one from (somewhere between)1955–1960.

I'm only assuming there's a cartographical mode of expression; but if not, perhaps something else would achieve the same?

Apologies for the convolution :) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Excel calls these stock charts. The stockcharts website calls them bar charts [23].--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Bloody hell, I think you might have just cracked it—I always think of bar charts as columns rising from zero rather than "floating" like that; but yes, that should work! Cheers! ~#~~
See also box plot and related. (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Research sources for Earhart/Hawaii Clipper Search and Rescue efforts[edit]

I’m doing research comparing the search and rescue efforts for the 1937 Earhart/Noonan and 1938 Hawaii Clipper disappearances, trying to reconstruct how many nations participated, what areas were covered, what coordination happened, etc. Where should I be looking for both archival records and already published material? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

For the latter, the following might be a good place to start: "The Hawaii Clipper - Pan Am Historical Foundation". — See also references in the article: Hawaii Clipper There is a team of "renowned investigative detectives" with a website: "Overview". The Lost Clipper. 15 August 2017.; they also post the The Civil Aeronautics Authority Investigation2606:A000:1126:28D:3107:F3D5:1B67:5D45 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
November 2013 issue of Aviation History has a fairly comprehensive description of the Hawaii Clipper search and rescue effort, republished online here: Geoghegan, John J. (22 June 2017). "Vanished!: What Happened to the Hawaii Clipper?". HistoryNet.2606:A000:1126:28D:3107:F3D5:1B67:5D45 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Can one realistically write and publish a law review article if one isn't a law school student or lawyer?[edit]

Can one realistically write and publish a law review article if one isn't a law school student or lawyer? Futurist110 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on your definition of "lawyer". Many law lecturers write such articles without being lawyers in the sense of "qualified to practise law", for example. If you want to exclude anyone who has graduated in law, there is a considerable overlap between philosophy and jurisprudence (John Rawls springs to mind). I'd imagine academics qualifed in economics and other social sciences might also dip their toes in. HenryFlower 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
What about non-academics who are interested in law? In other words, regular people with an interest in law. Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- by "law review article" do you mean an article for a scholarly journal focusing on legal issues, or a Wikipedia article related to law reviews? If you mean a scholarly review, that would depend on the editors of the publication. If you mean a Wikipedia article, then any editor can create such an article as long as the contents are factually accurate and it is based on reliable sources (WP:RS). - Epinoia (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I meant the former--specifically a scholarly review. Futurist110 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- each law review will have its own submission guidelines and acceptability will differ from journal to journal - the Harvard Law Review Submission Guidelines does not say that manuscripts have to be written by law school students or lawyers - at the Harvard Law Review, "each piece is reviewed anonymously," so the editors considering it do not know the identity of the authors and whether or not they are lawyers - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Most papers are jointly authored, either by two direct collaborators, or by an author working within a department of a law school etc. So there's often outside influence, from people other than the main author. It's not common, but nor is it unusual, for someone from outside the field of law directly to be involved in such a paper, but to be collaborating with someone who is qualified or training in that way. This would likely be on some crossover between their own field and the law, such as medical ethics, or technology and the law, or IP rights from some other field. To write a paper it's necessary to interest an editor in accepting it, and to convince some reviewers that it's competent. There's rarely any formal qualification required.
There's also international variation. If someone wishes to have a career "in business" in a broad sense, an American will commonly begin by training as a lawyer. Whereas a Briton will instead train as an accountant. A European might even be an engineer. Look at the differences between a group of generic "management consultants" and the split of first qualifications by country. So a Brit writing such an article on some aspect of commercial law could very well have a background more formally qualified in accountancy than in law. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Where is Raoul Berger buried?[edit]

Does anyone here know where Raoul Berger is buried? I couldn't find his grave or his burial place anywhere online. Futurist110 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I point out that he might not have been buried. -- (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's also certainly possible. Is there any information on this anywhere online? Or was it something that his family wanted to keep private?
I don't see him at The best I can do at the moment is Boston Globe, Oct 1, 2000, p.54, where it says "Raoul Berger... Memorial service Thursday Oct 12 at 3 pm in the Concord [Massachusetts] Academy Chapel... Arrangements by Joseph Dee and Son Funeral Service, Concord." That's from, a pay site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So, there was a memorial service to Berger at the Concord Academy. He isn't actually buried there, though--is he? Futurist110 (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried contacting either the Academy or the funeral home? Here's the web page for the funeral home.[24] They have a "contact us" tab. I didn't find any Bergers in the obituary search. Probably too far back for them to have it online. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
From our article, you wouldn't even know he was dead... ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The first line gives it away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


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

This wiki topic doesn’t appear to define the main —current and past Universally distinct qualifier - The religion and the people do not believe Jesus is the messiah. This has to be by design and is wrong.

This should be in the first 500 words on this topic and suggests that Wikipedia is not impartial or authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDDavec (talkcontribs) 06:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC) KDDavec (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What Reliable sources can you cite in support of your assertion that "the main —current and past Universally distinct qualifier - [of Judaism is that] The religion and the people do not believe Jesus is the messiah."? To me (a non-Jew and non-Christian) this seems like something a poorly educated Christian might think from a self-centered viewpoint, but not what Jews and other non-Christians would generally take to be "the main universally distinct qualifier" (if there has to be one). {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"The religion and the people do not believe Jesus is the messiah. " Along with most of planet Earth's population. Does that mean that humanity consists mostly of Jews? Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Jews also do not believe that Muhammad was the one true messenger of Allah or that there are thousands of contending Hindu gods and goddesses or that studying the teachings of the Buddha allows people to transcend human suffering. Jews do not think too highly of the unusual teachings of Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard. Why emphasize their thoughts about one particular Jesus? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
KDDavec -- Few general belief systems are preferentially described by their adherents as merely being against something, rather than positively (in terms of what they actually do believe in). Descriptions such as "Anti-X" are more appropriate for a limited-purpose political movement (anti-smoking etc) than for a religion (see Talk:Nontrinitarianism/Archive 1#Non- or anti- trinitarian). Furthermore, Judaism existed for at least 600 years before Jesus was born... AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Burials at Notre Dame de Paris[edit]

Where was Isabella of Hainault buried in Notre Dame? Is her remain still there after her exhumation in 1858. According to Category:Burials at Notre Dame de Paris, she seems to be the only French royal buried here instead at St. Denis or other sites. Why was she buried here? The article Notre Dam3 de Paris also has the category Category:Burial sites of the Pippinids but does not name any Pippinids who are buried here. Is this a mistake? KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)