P 41.89.220.5 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identify which area of your homework this is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on Commons here:[1] about if a painting is Cardinal Richelieu or Henri, Duke of Rohan. Knowledgeable views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I am not knowledgeable, but I have provided some information anyway. TSventon (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Anyone knows where online it would be possible to find some good maps of Manipur from 1950s or 1960s, in which administrative division borders like tehsils, circles, subdivisions, panas could be found? My google search didn't come up with anything good so far. -- Soman (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent some time looking, and have also come up empty. The National Archives of India at abhilekh-patal.in only seem to have digitised cartographic material through the late 1800s. Archive.org hosts An Historical Atlas of the Indian Subcontinent, but this was published 1949. The National Atlas of India (1959, ed. S.P. Chatterjee) seems like a promising source, but I haven't found it digitised anywhere. The National Atlas has many further editions and supplementa, none of which appear to be available online. I haven't done a thorough TWL search, but maybe that's the next step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] says 78 and [3] says 75. Why? (it's for this). Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 05:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only the initial statement in the first source says 78; all of the updates there say 75. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bargain in Death" segment of the Amicus anthology film Vault of Horror is very obviously cribbed from the Ambrose Bierce short story "One Summer Night". Can anyone find a reliable source that we could use in the article to say so? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but just to cover all the bases: the intermediate step of course is the comic book Tales from the Crypt #28 from Feb/Mar 1952, which is where the movie got its direct inspiration from. EC is, in my experience, more studied than Amicus, which is now mostly forgotten (I'm a fan, but they and Tigon tend to get overshadowed or lumped-in with their more famous contemporary, Hammer). So, my suggestion is to establish that connection (Bierce => EC). The original credits unfortunately do not help. It's user-edited like WP, so the Grand Comics Database won't qualify as a WP:RS anyway, but their write up here claims Gaines and Feldstein as co-plotters and Feldstein as the writer of the script. So, not a great start, but it still seems the likeliest connection. What I'd suggest is getting a hold of something like Von Bernewitz, Fred; Geissman, Grant (2000). Tales of Terror: The EC Companion or one of the other sources listed at the bottom of EC Comics and see if you can find something there.

I'm not familiar with the Bierce work, so I can't comment directly, but EC (and their later brethren Creepy, Eerie, etc.) were usually (but not always) pretty good about acknowledging sources, so it's a little unusual that they didn't do that here. Any chance it's a coincidence? Matt Deres (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres: Many thanks - the von Bernewitz & Geissman book is available at Archive.org, and on page 118 says Bargain in Death! is inspired by "One Summer Night" by Ambrose Bierce. You can read the Bierce story here. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: If you're reading Bierce, don't miss "The Death of Halpin Frayser". A classic! Deor (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor: Thank you for the recommendation - I'm actually working my way through numerous horror/mystery/ghost/weird short-story anthologies I have accumulated over the years. I see that "The Death of Halpin Frayser" is in Blair, David (2002). Gothic Short Stories. Wordsworth Classics. Wordsworth Editions. ISBN 1-84022-425-8., which is next-but-one (or two, if the latest from the British Library "Tales of the Weird" series turns up before I get to it) on my reading list. I won't read the Wikipedia article until I read the story. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a little explanation before the actual question, which is a mix of history and science - bear with me.

The FFF system (furlong-firkin-fortnight) is a humourous set of measurement units, mostly used for jokes about obscure measurement systems. I'm not sure when it was first proposed, since the article about it is lacking in historical detail.

In the book The Prospect of Immortality by Robert Ettinger, he states that "electrical signals travel essentially with the speed of light, namely about 1,560,000,000,000,000 furlongs per fortnight". There is no indication of this being a joke, and the source given for this paragraph gives the speed of light in the more typical metres per second, not furlongs per fortnight. The book is aimed towards the average layman of the 1960s (specifically "it is meant to be understandable to anyone who gets his money's worth out of a newspaper", from the foreword) and does have some humourous aspects to its writing, but it's strange to me that this measurement is used with zero explanation and zero indication that it's meant to be a joke and not a genuine way of measuring speed - Ettinger doesn't even give the speed in more usual terms afterwards.

So, my question is: would the average person of the 1960s (or even an academic of the 1960s) know about the FFF system enough to know that it's a joke? And would an average person roughly know the speed of light in the 1960s without having to research it, meaning Ettinger wouldn't have to give the speed in the usual units?

Let me know if this would be more well-suited for one of the other reference desks. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of FFF, but it's patently obvious to me that "furlongs per fortnight" is a joke (I went to school in London the 1960s when furlongs were not obscure, if that's pertinent). Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One question is whether the figure given for "furlongs per fortnight" is reasonably accurate. In school we learned that the speed of light was about 186,000 miles per second. A furlong is an eighth of a mile, so that would be 1,488,000 furlongs per second. There are 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds per day. A fortnight is 14 days, which would be 1,209,600 seconds. So the figure could be 1,488,000 x 1,209,600 = 1,799,884,800,000,000. That's considerably more than 1,560,000,000,000,000, though it's in the general neighborhood. Or is my calculation incorrect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, too many zeroes. 1,488,000 × 1,209,600 = 1,799,884,800,000. You gave the number of furlongs in 1,000 fortnights, i.e. about 38⅓ years. Nyttend (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that also then be a problem with the 1,560,000,000,000,000 figure? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, you're right. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I first heard of furlongs/fortnight in an undergraduate physics class ca. 1980. It's the kind of geeky humor which would probably have been confined to certain groups then -- though later on in the Internet era some such things have achieved wider publicity ("Pi Day" as March 14th, "unobtainium" given prominence by the Avatar movie, and so on)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled "unobtanium" in the film script.  --Lambiam 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Pi Day is the 22nd of July? DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Day -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Versus Pi Approximation Day.  --Lambiam 05:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they claiming 3.14 is exact? DuncanHill (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just before 4 PM on March 14, it will be 15.926535897932... hours on the 24-hour clock.  --Lambiam 16:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are y'all talking about me? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Molla Lutfi was a 15th century Ottoman scholar, Pl. help confirm following:

1) tr:Molla Lutfî is different from Lutfi (court official) ?

2) Date and year of execution, RS sources I came across seem to give 1494 (possibly December 24) as date of execution where as tr:Molla Lutfî seem to give January 23, 1495 as date of death please help confirm which is more likely to be correct one?

3) Molla Lutfi was executed at Hippodrome of Constantinople or Covered Hippodrome?

4) The Reference number 9 in "Crafting History: Essays on the Ottoman World and Beyond in Honor of Cemal Kafadar. Germany, Academic Studies Press, 2023." refers to a letter compiled in Tokapi Palace Museum archive E 8101/1 which had complained that Lutfi to have had stolen nefis books from collection of late Sinan Pasha, who was mentor to Lutfi. A corroborating ref is preferred saying wording used in the letter meant 'stolen' since late Sinan Pasha was a close mentor of Lutfi.

5) Last but not least, I would also request list of Molla Lufti's books with Arabic and roman script nomenclatures and translations of the names, if possible.

Bookku (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, the difference between 24 December 1494 and 23 January 1495 is too great for solely Julian–Gregorian conversion to account for, but that may be part of the discrepancy. I've noticed that English language sources seem to prefer Julian where other languages tend to prefer Proleptic Gregorian. If you determine this is part of the problem, you may wish to include the other calendar's date in a footnote like we did at Zhu Yuanzhang to prevent people from changing it to be "consistent" with their own language sources. Folly Mox (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any reference use Proleptic Gregorian? That's saying, "this is the date it would have been if Pope Gregory had decreed the new calendar earlier than he actually did - except he didn't". There's obviously a case for converting Julian dates to Gregorian in cases where the country concerned had not yet adopted the Gregorian calendar; that can apply from 1582 onwards. But going backwards from 1582 makes no sense; the new calendar was not retrospective, and Julian dates right up to Wednesday 4 October 1582 are correct and should not be converted. That that date was immediately followed by Thursday 15 October 1582 as the first day of the new Gregorian calendar was just a result of correcting the discrepancies that had built up over 15 centuries. There was always meant to be a disconnection, the famous 10-day gap (which increased every century the longer it took for countries to convert). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultures that did not start out with the Julian calendar (Chinese calendar, Islamic calendar, e.g.) have a choice to make when converting pre-Gregorian dates to use a Western calendar, and many sources make the reasonable choice of using Proleptic Gregorian for consistency and ease of calculation rather than having to remember and account for the 1582 reform. Folly Mox (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In the 15th-century sources, which are written in Ottoman Turkish, all dates are given in the Islamic calendar. I suppose that present-day scholars, translating such dates to a form accessible to their readership, see no reason to use another calendar that was current in the 15th century but is antiquated now.  --Lambiam 11:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are both saying. I suppose it makes a kind of sense if those sources are considered in isolation. But the moment you introduce events in other countries around the same times, and those countries were using the Julian calendar, hey presto! there's an instant mismatch between the dates, making it seem as if one event preceded the other by up to 10 days in real time when in fact they were coincident. That seems less than useful as an aid to scholarship. Also, the conversion they use seems to be based on the view that Julian dates up to 4 October 1582 were somehow "inaccurate" and need to be corrected. That's just not so. Yes, the calendar itself got out of synch over a period of centuries, which is why Gregory decreed a new one - but the labels that were actually given to days before then (i.e. the dates) were the ones that the entire Western world used, the only official and correct ones (which were NOT retrospectively adjusted by Gregory's reform), and to fiddle with them from the lofty perspective of 20th-21st century scholarship seems somewhat wrong-headed, imo. It may sometimes be helpful to make it clear that, e.g. 15 July 1374 was a date in the Julian calendar. That's the solution, if one were required. But to convert that to 25 July in the Proleptic Gregorian is a step too far, and in the wrong direction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, according to Lutfi (court official), [Lutfi's] letter was "written in the middle of the month of Cemazi the Second in the year three and seventy and nine hundred²" which roughly translates to August 1565-6. (Where ² is a malformed ^[2] citing "Casale pg 70", and Casale authored two works cited...) Anyway this seems to exclude identity between the two subjects (they also have different Wikidata QIDs, although no overlapping authority control IDs to help verify). Folly Mox (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the tr.wp article links Hippodrome of Constantinople (technically, tr:Sultanahmet Meydanı; I just checked the language switcher), in re your question 3. Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The article on the scholar on the Turkish Wikipedia identifies the place of execution unambiguously as the Hippodrome of Constantinople. I don't think the Covered Hippodrome was then still extant.  --Lambiam 12:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian calendar date January 23, 1495 corresponds to Julian calendar date January 14, 1495 or 1494. The uncertainty in the year is due to the fact that the new year did not everywhere start on January 1st; see Julian calendar § New Year's Day. In England, March 24, 1494 was followed by March 25, 1495. Both dates fall in April 1495 with Gregorian reckoning.  --Lambiam 05:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date conversions seem bit confusing to me. Trying to study and understand. Bookku (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's confusing is the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar. If sources actually employ this, they're doing a disservice to their readers, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from France to the Reference Desk Users. My « strange » question comes from the end of Andrea Dworkin's strange quote in a book about “The Economics of Sex” (I can't find the exact title): “A man wants what a woman has - her sex. He can steal it (rape), convince her to give it to him (seduction), rent it (prostitution), lease it long-term (marriage in the US), or acquire it outright (marriage in most countries of the world).” I read that quotation in Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature (a translated book to French). My question concerns the words in bold.
I'll take the risk of trying to answer my question: Could this be an allusion to the fact that, statistically, marriages end much (?) more often in the USA than elsewhere in divorce, followed by marriages, then divorce, then marriages, sometimes with the same person (rare in France, I think?). Thank you for your matrimonial cogitations. Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea was kind of "damaged", and it's hard to tell what she thought she was getting at. But if you google "divorce rate in france vs us", for example, you'll find they are comparable. A century ago and more, divorces were much harder to get in America, and probably elsewhere as well. You couldn't just say "we want a divorce". You had to show "cause", which led to bitterly contested trials. (That still happens sometimes.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, since colonial times, divorce laws in British North America / The United States were much more rational than the horrible pre-1857 divorce system in England, and during parts of U.S. history, there has been a state with noticeably laxer divorce laws than most of the other states (Indiana during part of the 19th century, Nevada during much of the 20th century). AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be my assumption, a sarcastic allusion to the serial marriage practice found particularly among the rich and powerful. I doubt that Dworkin undertook a serious statistical examination comparing the US with other Western countries in the 1970s, or whenever she penned these words. (Rather unscholarly, neither Pinker nor others quoting these sentences provide a traceable bibliographic citation that allows me to date this passage.)  --Lambiam 14:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as P. G. Wodehouse wrote in Summer Moonshine, "Like so many substantial citizens of America, he had married young and kept on marrying, springing from blonde to blonde like the chamois of the Alps leaping from crag to crag." Deor (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The original seems to be called "Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth", possibly first published in 1972 in Ms.. Having skimmed the article, she never explains that aside remark - she actually talks mostly about socialist Czechoslovakia and the USSR in the rest of the piece. Some modern quotations of her adapt the quote to "lease it over the long-term (modern marriage/relationship) or own it outright (traditional marriage)" That said, 1972 was just after the first no-fault divorce law was passed in the United States (in California), and looking at Divorce law by country, slightly before most European countries (which liberalized in the mid 70s. Smurrayinchester 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full original quote:

In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and econom ics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has—sex. He can steal it (rape), persuade her to give it away (seduction), rent it (prostitution), lease it over the long term (marriage in the United States), or own it outright (marriage in most societies). A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.

It is indeed from "Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth", first given as a speech to women at Harper & Row in 1976, and later published by Ms. in what Dworkin calls an "edited" version (her air quotes). The full original speech is published in Letters From a War Zone (1989). See p. 120. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economics certainly figure into it, for example ugly rich guys getting pretty women. That's a universal truth. Did Dworkin ever elaborate on her perceived differences between American and other marriages? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes economics figures into everything and that's a truth, but what's supposedly this universal truth? How about a source? Where in pre-20th-century history was it not true that a rich and high status person, regardless of superficial appearance or indeed gender, could not exert comparable influence on any in the lower classes? In the 21st century so-called-middle-class of developed economies, are there numbers on those who would sell themselves into the described effective rape and slavery to marry those in the uppermost socioeconomic classes? These are all economic questions that are hardly universal, which is the point others are making of how this was an aside remark. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A source for the obvious? What color is the sky in your world? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and divorce ratios in selected countries: 1960 to 1992 shows that the divorce rate in the USA was more than double that of any Western European nation throughout the late 20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even before that, the ease of divorce in some of those there United States was proverbial. "King's Moll Renoed in Wolsey's Home Town". DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a modern expression of an old theory of Marx's. He was writing polemically at the time—hyperbolically, even, perhaps with an element of tongue-in-cheek for the worthy tailors—but the topic is similar:

Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives ... Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common.^[1]

Dworkin's was an updated working, in theme and language, but the hyperbole is akin. SerialNumber54129 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not, however, the hyperbolic nature of Dworkin's passage, or the contrast between bourgeois and proletariat, but the alleged contrast between the US and "most societies", something Marx is mum about.  --Lambiam 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freud had something to say about Marx's Mum. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Who is the white one in myth? In Egypt,: Krauss^[1] says "For White One as a synonym for the eastern eye of Horus, cf the Hymns to the Diadem, above." Adolf Erman 1911 gives only one result for "der Weiße". Krauss didn't mention which of the 600-some pages. Any help? (And where does Hathi get off restricting downloads of materials marked public domain?) Temerarius (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temerarius (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Hedjet. 196.50.199.218 (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see it. Now what?

Temerarius (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, depending on the context of the article you're working on, the next step is to reframe your question from Who is the white one in myth? to "What is the White One in ancient Egyptian tradition?"

If that step is taken, then Hedjet is your answer. If your context does not allow for that interpretation, perhaps more information would help people zero in on an aswer that meets your requirements. Folly Mox (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was their east the same as our east?

Temerarius (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with ancient Egyptian cartography and orienteering. Are you consulting documents in the original Egyptian? I'd imagine translators would likely interpret this correctly, unless like me they suffer directional dyslexia.

I speculate that Egyptians may have used "East" to refer to other cultures that were more northerly / northeasterly than strictly East, which I base on no research whatsoever.

Would you be willing to share the context for these questions? You done got me curious. Folly Mox (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a few things, in part I'm wondering if there's a lunar or solar quality to the whtite one. It sounds like the moon, but here pages 228-9 make me think dawn < radiate/radiant might be the source meaning.

Temerarius (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a page about a tomb which has the phrase "the southern (theologically east) wall".  Card Zero  (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It being public domain means that if you get your hands on it, then you can freely redistribute it. It doesn't mean that anyone else is obliged to give it to you... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across a minor "white one" reference in Petrie's Anhas el Medineh. Next to a more cross-culturally familiar title "lady of heaven." https://i.postimg.cc/VNsTJcLM/image.png

Temerarius (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sola Busca tarot, the Fool has number 0 alongside the other trumps with Roman numerals. The existence of such a combination is not mentioned in Roman numerals#Zero. Are there other examples? When did this first occur, as far as we know? --KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  0 – Mato
• 
  I – Panfilio
• 
  II – Postumio
• 
  III – Lenpio

KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: Also see The Fool (tarot card). SerialNumber54129 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Romans didn't really have a concept of zero as a numerical digit in ordinary reckoning (though of course they had several words meaning "nothing"), and a zero numerical digit symbol would not have been needed or useful when writing positive numbers with Roman numerals. The closest they had to a positional notation system was sexagesimal (base-60) and was mainly used by astronomers. The sexagesimal system had a limited internal zero (used when flanked by other numbers on both sides, to indicate an empty place). AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See 0#Transmission to Europe. Arabic numerals including 0 were introduced to Western Europe early in the 13th century, so any time from then on an individual using Roman numerals (and they are of course still in active use today) might have found it convenient to combine 0 with them. Some may have known of classical Greek use of omicron (ο) when working with Babylonian texts that had a 'placeholder' zero symbol, and Hipparchus, Ptolemy and other astronomers' use of the Hellenistic zero (see 0#Classical antiquity) (which the Romans failed to adopt into Roman numerals) around 150 CE (mentioned in the 0 article): I can't reproduce it here, but it comprised a long 'overline' above a tiny circle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the magic of unicode: 𐆊, U+1018A GREEK ZERO SIGN. This is also at the top of the article Greek Numerals.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, that (like several other characters in the article) doesn't render on my PC: presumably I lack the font. No matter, because I don't myself need to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this: , a small circle with a long overbar.  --Lambiam 09:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first font I install on any new computer is Unifont for precisely this kind of purpose. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. Maybe someone knows a specific example of "any time from then on an individual using Roman numerals (and they are of course still in active use today) might have found it convenient to combine 0 with them".? --KnightMove (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that both (a) this late 15th century tarot is actually the first such example, and (b) you are the first person to have wondered about this point. I have not been able to find any work mentioning it; probably the expertise of a scholar specialising in Mediaeval MSS is needed.

For tangential interest, I have while searching encountered a 52-page work The Elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography by Adriano Cappelli, translated by David Heiman & Richard Kay, University of Kansas Libraries 1982 (googling the title gives access to downloadable pdfs). It doesn't address this particular question, but may be of interest nonetheless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a modern example is of use to you, not the earliest (it seems you asked for both?), see Shepherd Gate Clock.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thank you both! --KnightMove (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existence of such examples was worth to be added to the article. --KnightMove (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear, though, that the creator of the deck thought of his use of the mark "0" as being a Roman numeral. Rather, I think it quite plausible that the creator, lacking a Roman numeral for zero, decided to use a large Arabic numeral instead.  --Lambiam 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Graham Greene (citing a biography) says that his mother Marion Raymond Greene (1872-1959, the daughter of Carleton Greene and Jane Whytt Elizabeth Anne Wilson) was a cousin of Robert Louis Stevenson. This source specifies they were first cousins. R.L.S.'s grandparents are well known: 1) Robert Stevenson (1750-1852) and his wife Jean Smith, 2) Rev. Lewis Balfour and his wife Henrietta Scott Smith. The names like Greene and Wilson are not listed among R.L.S.'s ancestors, as well as the Scottish names like Stevenson and Balfour are absent among Marion Raymond's ancestors. Could anyone clarify this mystery? Ghirla^-трёп- 23:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB says "Greene, (Henry) Graham (1904–1991), author, was born on 2 October 1904 at St John's, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, the fourth of six children of Charles Henry Greene (1865–1942), teacher, and his wife and cousin, Marion Raymond (1872–1959), eldest daughter of the Revd Carleton Greene, whose wife, Jane Wilson, was a first cousin of Robert Louis Stevenson." - so Graham Greene's grand-mother was a first cousin of RLS. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Indeed, Jane's mother Marion Balfour (1811-1884) was the daughter of the above-mentioned Lewis Balfour! Ghirla^-трёп- 00:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That means that Greene was RLS's first cousin twice removed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found out, I didn't get there yet. What's your source? Gratuitous extra details: robert-louis-stevenson.org has him attending cousin Jane's marriage in Cockfield, Suffolk, in 1870, and cockfield.org.uk confirms that these (Jane and her sister Maud) were the English cousins mentioned in our article, who he was visiting in 1873.  Card Zero  (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link. Ghirla^-трёп- 10:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing a Yamaha dgx-670, I pressed the "score" button, and was displeased to see there's not an option to have the digital display's staff show the keys you're hitting. Is there a keyboard with that feature? But more immediately, what's a well-regarded PC or browser app to make a score? Failing that, to print totally custom blank score sheets? Temerarius (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often hear LilyPond mentioned.  Card Zero  (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the (proprietary and now ancient) Sibelius v1.4 for many years, but later versions seem fairly unwieldy. Compared to the professional Sibelius with its full GUI, the text-based Lilypond by itself is fairly slow and tedious, but Frescobaldi (software) provides a front end (Win, MacOS, Linux), which I haven't tried yet. See also List of scorewriters and Comparison of scorewriters. For basic stuff I used to use Cakewalk Express 3.01, (NB Windows 3.1, 8-character file names etc.) It's still available here. If you want step-time or real-time MIDI input, to show on screen what what you're playing, free-ish MuseScore seems to fit the bill but I've never tried it. Most of these programs have a fairly steep learning curve involved. The more music theory you know, the better. MinorProphet (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always used Mozart the music processor. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question has been raised at Talk:Hamlet on screen whether a source is correct in asserting that Pasternak and Smoktunovski had been imprisoned by Stalin. See what is currently the last topic on that talk page, but also the one above it, from over a decade before. It seems probable anon is right but, while I accept that sources don't need to be in the English language, I personally cannot verify anything written in another language. Can anyone here help to resolve that? If it proves wrong I expect the right solution is to simply remove the offending sentence rather than replacing it. AndyJones (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered there, having checked the Google books copy of the source. It doesn't say he was imprisoned, rather that "both the translator of the text, Boris Pasternak, and the actor playing Hamlet, Innokenti Smoktunovski, had bitter experience of Stalin's regime" DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Doctor Zhivago for more info for his "experiences". It was his mistress Olga Ivinskaya who had been in the Gulag under Stalin. MinorProphet (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What was the penal colony for the State enemies in New Spain until the Spanish domination's end?

Execution by garrote?
Sleigh (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there were no penal colonies as such, convicts worked where they were needed:

In Spanish America penal servitude followed the peninsular model with the exception that the line between public and private interests was blurred. In Spain convicts could be used only in projects deemed to be in the interest of the state; for example, they labored on the galleys and in the presidios in the service of the king and were under military control and jurisdiction. In the New World there was no such distinction, and anything that helped to further develop the economy was deemed in the public interest. Faced with a severe shortage of labor because of the decline in Indian population from the middle of the sixteenth century, the colonial courts sentenced men to terms of service at hard labor and then turned them over to private employers who used them in mines, factories and mills.

Penal Servitude in the Spanish Empire: Presidio Labor in the Eighteenth Century - Hispanic American Historical Review (1978)

Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are there info about the full life of the one who tried to assassinate Stalin in 1931? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.179.195 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen anything about that guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article "The 4 times they tried to assassinate Stalin says he was "a former White Guard officer, a member of the Russian All-Military Union organization of emigres and, moreover, a British intelligence agent." Reliable source? Who knows. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted an aircraft carrier near 8G78+MR Camp Pendleton North, California around Oct 14th 8:20 AM local time. I did not have any binoculars or scopes so I could not make out any identifying marks. Is there any online public information on which carrier this might have been?

From this site[4], it might have been CVN 68, 70, or 71. That's all I've been able to find so far. Epideurus (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Navy news, the only carrier close enough to Southern California to be seen is USS Nimitz (CVN-68). Nearby, USS Tripoli (LHA-7) is in Northern California and USS George Washington (CVN-73) is near Southern California, but too far from shore to be seen. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did google quite a bit beforehand, but there were many purported "US carrier tracker" sites and it was hard to tell which one was correct. Epideurus (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this quote from Terry Eagleton's "Why Marx was Right?" published in 2011.

"The word ‘‘proletariat’’ comes to us from the Latin word for ‘‘offspring,’’ meaning those who were too poor to serve the state with anything but their wombs. Too deprived to contribute to economic life in any other way, these women produced labour power in the form of children."

In ancient Rome, the Latin form of the modern expression carried the meaning of people having no other property than their children, according to many sources. None mentions it has anything to do with womb or giving birth. The sources I checked would rather suggest a destitute class of the society rather than a female section of that class. Eagleton cites no source. Anybody knows any scholarly source suggesting a meaning akin to Eagleton's? Thanks for any information. Narrativist (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "proletariat" comes from French "prolétariat", which is derived from Latin "proletarius"^[1][2]

• In ancient Rome, "proletarius" referred to a citizen of the lowest class, whose only contribution to the state was their offspring (proles)

• The Latin word "proles" means "offspring" or "progeny"

• Breaking it down further:

"Proles" comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *pro-al-, composed of:

• pro- meaning "forth"

• al- meaning "to grow, nourish"

The modern political and economic sense of "proletariat" to mean the working class or wage-earners emerged in the mid-19th century.^[3]

It was notably used by Karl Marx and gained prominence in Marxist theory to refer to the class of wage workers engaged in industrial production.^[1]

--136.56.165.118 (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many dictionaries use this phrase "only contribution to the state". For instance, I looked at Chambers's from 1908 (since it's on Gutenberg), same phrase. I assume they all come from the same source, perhaps a Roman author? It carries a strange inbuilt assumption about Romans having a raison d'être of supporting their hive, like ants. Proletarians seem to be specific to the Centuriate assembly.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got to know as much but my question is, are there any sources saying that the expression had a female specific meaning in ancient Rome. Narrativist (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other sources with the same misunderstanding, they probably are based on a common source whose wording was, perhaps, ambiguous. The Latin noun proletarius is masculine; there is no noun *proletarias from which one might surmise prolétariat, first attested in 1832, to have been derived. Lewis & Short write: "According to a division of the people by Servius Tullius, a citizen of the lowest class, who served the State not with his property, but only with his children (proles), a proletary".^[5]  --Lambiam 17:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the specific references to women and their wombs is Eagleton's own poetic flourish (which though florid is not factually inaccurate) rather than a reflection of exact wording in any original source. Since he's still a practising academic, you could always try asking him directly. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic or not, it is bound to mislead readers unfamiliar with Ancient Roman civilization. The formulation "these women" rather explicitly restricts the Roman citizens considered to be proletarians to members of the female sex. But Ancient Rome was thoroughly patriarchal; the status of a woman was that of her husband (or father, if still unmarried). The division by Servius Tullius (and any similar classifications of the citizenship) ignored the female half of the citizenship. Non-proletarians contributed by the tax on their property, levied on the (male) head of the household.  --Lambiam 07:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're over-reading Eagleton's intent: the wives and daughters of proletarians were themselves of the proletarian class (as you say), and they (not their husbands/fathers) were the ones with wombs. I suggest Eagleton wants to tug at the heartstrings by setting up a resonance with wombs, labour (geddit?) and children: he isn't setting out a textbook definition of the Roman proletariat or of the word's etymology. I don't, by the way, endorse his approach (I doubt I'd agree with him on virtually anything), I'm merely explaining why I don't think there's any point in Narrativist looking for mentions of wombs in the contemporary sources. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did email Eagleton but no reply came from him. From what we get to know, his seemingly intellectual dash is far from being accurate. Ideology blinds, I guess. I would rather call it sloppy. Thanks for your take on the matter. Narrativist (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam You threw much light on the question. Thanks. Narrativist (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where the information that Women's suffrage in Afghanistan was introduced in 1919 comes from? I have often seen the claim that women where given the wote in Afghanistan in 1919 in online discussions, debates, blogs, online comments, etc. But this is never claimed in any reference text book anywhere. On the contrary, text books always state that women in Afghanistan was given the vote in 1964. Where does the 1919 claim come from? Is it some sort of internet myth? --Aciram (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can point you to one textbook which states that Afghan women were given the vote in 1919, had it revoked in 1929, and regained it in 1964 ([6]); and to another which says more vaguely that the right of women to vote, initially granted in 1919, "was revoked and reinstated several times before most recently being implemented in 2004" ([7]). --Antiquary (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Did Afghanistan have a parlamentary system in 1919? Did men vote in 1919? --Aciram (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous thread on the same subject Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 July 28#Women's suffrage in Afghanistan. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good Lord. I completely forgot about that.--Aciram (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the R. H. Benson short story 'The Watcher' we read "... I heard pealing out above all other sounds the long liquid song of a thrush somewhere above me. I looked up idly and tried to see the bird, and after a moment or two caught sight of him as the leaves of the beech parted in the breeze, his head lifted and his whole body vibrating with the joy of life and music. As some one has said, his body was one beating heart." Who was it who said "his body was one beating heart"? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps no-one before Benson. Vaguely describing a phrase in one's own prose as a quotation from some unidentified other's work is, I think, not unknown in literature. P. G. Wodehouse (for one) used to do a similar thing by having his "silly ass" characters mangle and misattribute quotes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mangled, then who's being mangled? DuncanHill (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "a similar thing", not "the identical thing". I was not suggesting that this particular Benson passage is a mangled quote (though it might be).

Another possibility is that Benson had literally heard it said by someone who had not later published it, and wanted to use it but not appear to take credit for the invention of another, whom he did not wish to identify by name at this particular juncture. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insinuating that we're in some sort of danger here ?

130.74.59.35 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Biden and Harris but dont recognize the other two people Trade (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff respectively. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their spouses. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. In which Nancy Spain story does a hypodermic syringe prominently figure? Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer might be found in A Trouser-wearing Character: The Life and Times of Nancy Spain p. 98. Celia, Tommy, Connie, Major Bognor— R in the Month? fiveby(zero) 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, fiveby, that's the one! SerialNumber54129 11:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Aviators by continent. The only problem is Australia and Oceania, with the latter stating "Outside of the English-speaking world, Oceania is generally considered a continent, while Australia is regarded as an island or a continental landmass within that continent." So should the category include:

1. a category for Australia (Category:Australian aviators) and another for Oceania (Category:Oceanian aviators)
2. a category just for Oceania encompassing both
3. a single category for Australia and Oceania (Category:Australian and Oceanian aviators)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through Category:Categories_by_continent and see how others do it. Surely this isn't the first time this question has come up... --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we have Category:X of Oceania with a subcategory Category:X of Australia (e.g. Category:Arthropods of Oceania with subcategory Category:Arthropods of Australia; Category:Cinema of Oceania with subcategory Category:Pornography (!) in Australia; Category:Organizations based in Oceania with subcategory Category:Organisations based in Australia; Category:Welfare in Oceania with subcategory Category:Welfare in Australia).  --Lambiam 06:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those things by continent put under Europe also things from Iceland, Mallorca and Cyprus, which are, in terms of physical geography, islands in the middle of an ocean, either not part of any continent or tiny continents of their own. Great Britain at least is connected to Europe by the continental shelf, but the other islands I mentioned aren't. So those things by continent take continent (in the social geographical sense) to mean some part of the world that usually roughly coincides with a continent in the physical geographical sense, without actually being one, in such a way that no part is left out. Just like those small islands around Europe are grouped with the European continent, all those islands in the Pacific are grouped with the Australian continent (or the Zealandia submerged continent). But Australia doesn't take such a dominant place within Oceania (although it's still the majority of the land area) and is a country of its own, so in this case the large area is called Oceania, not Australia.

Conclusion: Australia is a continent in the physical geographical sense, Oceania is one in the social geographical sense and Australia is part of it, and those things by continent use the social geographical sense. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA, a person can be President for only two terms (8 years). Is there any similar restriction for being Vice President? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Term_of_office. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the President having only two terms means two consecutive terms. It's still an open question whether, say, Barack Obama, having already had two consecutive terms, could be elected to a third term after the eight-year break in which Trump and Biden occupied the Oval Office. It's never happened (at least not since the Constitution was changed to prevent a repeat of the people exercising their democratic choice to elect F D Roosevelt to a third and a fourth term), and it would probably need a Supreme Court to give it the imprimatur, but many of those who know the US Constitution better than I seem to think it's permissible. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes no distinction between consecutive and non-consecutive terms. --Amble (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this question has come up here multiple times, and I'm almost sure what I said above applies. (That's as sure as I can be given the increasing addleness of my brain).

But the 22nd Amendment definitely does not prohibit a former president from being elected vice president and then succeeding as president on the death or resignation of the incumbent. And that could happen an unlimited number of times. Because the Amendment only talks about a limit on being elected president, not on becoming president some other way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" As we clearly state, Obama is not eligible to be VP: "Under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 'no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President [e.g., Obama!] shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.'" DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs George Canninge, who acted under that name although her given name was Sarah, was a well-known character actress in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among other roles, she created that of Miss Prism in The Importance of Being Earnest in 1895. I'd like to put together a short article about her, but I cannot discover her date of death. Grateful for any steer in the right direction. I have access to Ancestry and the British Library Newspaper archive, but have drawn a blank in both. Tim riley talk 10:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alive and living with George at 35 Belsize Avenue, Bowes Park N, Southgate, Middlesex in the 1911 Census. Born Stepney 1843. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I can trace her into a bit later in the C20th and really need her date of death. But thanks nevertheless Tim riley talk 17:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find their marriage, her maiden name, her birth, or his birth. Do we know if they were even married, was Canninge George's birth name? DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally in the British system, honorifics which a woman owed to being married were not put before her own first name. So Diana, Princess of Wales is correct, but Princess Diana of Wales incorrect. On the level of ordinary married women, this led to Mrs. George Canninge (see Princess Michael of Kent). AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were there Japanese-Americans in the Japanese armed forces during World War II? 81.152.122.255 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example, see Internment of Japanese Americans#Proving commitment to the United States and the section of that article just before it. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Sorry, my mistake. Dekimasuよ! 08:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was asking about the Japanese army, not the American army. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an excellent article Stranded: Nisei in Japan Before, During, and After World War II that describes several books and other resources about the experiences of Japanese Americans who happened to be in Japan at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Many of the young men were either conscripted into the Japanese Army or in some cases, served willingly. In one case, Iwao Peter Sano, an American citizen conscripted into the Japanese Army, spent nearly three years in a Soviet POW camp in Siberia, and later wrote a book about his experiences that was published by the University of Nebraska.

US born Tomoya Kawikata was convicted of treason after the war and his story is described in Kawakita v. United States. He was not officially in the Japanese Army but was a translator at a nickel mine under Japanese military control where American and Canadian POWs worked under exceptionally harsh conditions, and he brutalized many prisoners. He was sentenced to death but the sentence was later commuted to life in prison. In 1963, President Kennedy ordered him released as a goodwill gesture. He was deported permanently to Japan. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. "Brothers went to war, but not all on the same side". fiveby(zero) 15:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I mean the Japanese army. 81.152.122.255 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see this item. "A New Kingdom stela from the Theban workmen's village at Deir el-Medina bears images of two geese associated with Amun-Re: one of them, described as 'the beautiful goose of Amun-Re', is an image of the sacred bird, while the other, 'Amun-Re, the beautiful goose', depicts the god himself."^[1][2] I couldn't google up the stela, or find it in Petries "Anhas el-Medineh", and I don't think it's the "Mona Lisa of Egypt" painting of geese from Thebes (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102834), (https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/DT226227.jpg) does anybody have a tip? Temerarius (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go!  Card Zero  (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I wonder which Huy it is. Is the horizontal line hieroglyph Y1 papyrus? O34 & N37 's'?

Temerarius (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can nearly piece together which Huy. This is catalog item 1607 in the Egyptian Museum of Turin. Item 1608 is another stela of Huy, also from Deir el-Medina. This document mentions "Stela Cat. 1609 of the chief craftsman Huy (TT 361)". I can't find that! But TT 361 is a tomb number, and Osirisnet mentions "Huy, the owner of TT361". So circumstantially it's that Huy. Not one of the famous Huys, just some Huy. "Main carpenter in the place of truth." Regarding the hieroglyphs, I think his name starts at the bottom of the column above his right hand with the tusk, followed by the tied papyrus (what does that do phonetically?) and ends with two reeds at the top of the next column (above his face). I might be totally wrong about it, but his name ought to be there somewhere, right? In which case, the tusk looks annoyingly similar to a straight horizontal line, and probably lots of the other horizontal lines are assorted different hieroglyphs engraved almost identically.

Regarding the god-and-symbol-of-god, presumably the same thing is happening here only with Amon-Ra as a ram this time.  Card Zero  (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come all polls in nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election seem to present the result as percentages of votes in the nationwide voting? Wouldn't it be more interesting to present the number of Electoral College votes each of the candidates can be foreseen to get? It is after all the Electoral College which decides who will become president. GotoGothenburg (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They look at various things: National percentages, percentages by state, and also percentages for the "battleground" states, the so-called "purple" states, which will likely decide the election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs, it's not presented like that at the page I linked. It is just percentages for the national level. So your answer does not address the question. GotoGothenburg (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it couldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what parts of the world is this good advice:

• Use of the vehicle as a weapon against the car jacker, or a firearm or pepper spray.

Doug butler (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. Those are good ways to get killed. I removed that unreferenced and ridiculous "advice" from the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you add up all the time that an individual served as either President or Vice President of the USA, which individual accumulated the most time? In other words, who served the longest? (Excluding FDR, I assume.) Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to exclude FDR. The top contenders are Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. FDR was never vice-president but he was elected president four times. He died shortly after his fourth inauguration, serving 12 years and a little over a month. Nixon served two full terms as vice-president under Dwight Eisenhower, and was elected president twice. He resigned a bit over a year and a half into his second term, so he wins the prize with over 13-1/2 years in those roles. Third place goes to John Adams who served two full terms as vice-president under George Washinton followed by one full term of his own as president, for 12 years. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just tallied up the number of days every President and Vice President has served in office, a list that has 79 people. You're dead on about Nixon being first (4949 days) and FDR being second (4422 days.) However, while John Adams did indeed serve three full terms, he didn't start serving his first VP term until April 21, 1789 as opposed to the standard March 4, as noted in John Adams#Election. If we go purely by actual service time and not expected term time, this means that he served 4334 days, which would actually be fifth place. In third place would be George H. W. Bush, who served three full terms (twice VP, once president) for a total of 4383 days, and in fourth place would be Thomas Jefferson, who also served three full terms (once VP, twice president) but lost out by a day due to 1800 not being a leap year, for 4382 days total. The only other person to serve more than two terms worth is none other than Joe Biden, whose tally is at 4290 days and counting.

Other interesting notes from the tally:

1. The most common service lengths are 1461 days and 2922 days. 32 people have served the former, and 20 people have served the latter. Of course, this is just 4 years'/8 years' worth of days respectively, including the expected 1/2 leap day(s).
2. 6 people, as mentioned earlier, have served more than two terms' worth of days, 7 people served between one and two terms' worth of days, and 14 people served less than one term's worth of days (although this 14 also includes Kamala Harris, who will likely join the 1 termers, possibly more pending the upcoming election.)
3. Somehow, Thomas Jefferson is the only person whose position on the list was meaningfully affected by the leap year century rule. While John Adams also lost a day to the 1800 lack of leap day, his aforementioned late VP term start day more than offset that otherwise-minor difference. William McKinley's loss of a day in 1900 would have been meaningful if he hadn't been assassinated. Similarly, his first VP Garret Hobart died in office in 1899, and the next VP after him, none other than Teddy Roosevelt, started his term in 1901. Finally, 2000 was a leap year, so no chance for any strangeness there.
4. Even with vice presidents added, William Henry Harrison's 31-day presidential term is the shortest time served, although William R. King's 45-day VP term comes close.
5. Speaking of coming close, by pure coincidence, Henry Wilson's 993-day term as the 18th VP from March 4, 1873 to November 22, 1875 - a term which ended in death by stroke - was one day longer than Garret Hobart's 992-day term as the 24th VP from March 4, 1897 to November 21, 1899 - which ended also in death, except by heart disease.

GalacticShoe (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent research, GalacticShoe. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I was hoping to get some assistance in locating a source for an article I'm editing (Cady Noland). The piece I'm looking for is in the September 1990 edition of Mirabella (WorldCat link for magazine), pp 88-93: "Venice Anyone?" by Peter Schjeldahl. No libraries in my vicinity have a copy of that issue, bound or otherwise, but it's been referenced quite a few times in other literature about Noland, with some pretty great quotes/analysis that I'd love to see in total. Any idea where I might be able to find a full-text transcription or otherwise get access to this? Any assistance appreciated. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if there are any adaptations or variations of Trotskysism (or lenninism to an extent) that focuses more solely on economics or economic theory, maybe more specifically on distribution of resources. I think this might just be a certain branch of Communist economics, however I am not too well versed in economics so any helps is appreciated. NIght Palace (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]