Lone Ranger1999 (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
:::As noted, lay out your whole case, supported, referenced, and explained, in one place (per the talk page comment of 18 Dec, and others). Note, for instance, that your Navy link at the top of this question is a 404 page. Secondly, lay out this case on the talk page rather than continuing to revert the active article. Perhaps there is space to build a case for listing non-combat theater losses separately from combat losses. You may also gain support if you're able to build a case that cross-references other articles; if the overarching [[World War II casualties]] article uses sources that include all casualties of interest and provides an appropriate theater breakout, referencing those sources -- and noting that the goal is to increase consistency within Wikipedia -- will likely be better received than continuing in your present course. — [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC) |
:::As noted, lay out your whole case, supported, referenced, and explained, in one place (per the talk page comment of 18 Dec, and others). Note, for instance, that your Navy link at the top of this question is a 404 page. Secondly, lay out this case on the talk page rather than continuing to revert the active article. Perhaps there is space to build a case for listing non-combat theater losses separately from combat losses. You may also gain support if you're able to build a case that cross-references other articles; if the overarching [[World War II casualties]] article uses sources that include all casualties of interest and provides an appropriate theater breakout, referencing those sources -- and noting that the goal is to increase consistency within Wikipedia -- will likely be better received than continuing in your present course. — [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. [[User:Lone Ranger1999|Lone Ranger1999]] ([[User talk:Lone Ranger1999|talk]]) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC) |
::::I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. [[User:Lone Ranger1999|Lone Ranger1999]] ([[User talk:Lone Ranger1999|talk]]) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::The issue is not that the sources are not authoritative, it's that no one knows what you are trying to do; you're going about it in a confusing manner that makes it hard to understand your issues with the article as it is currently laid out. Use the article talk page to propose the changes you wish to make, being very clear and deliberate about what text you wish to write, what you intend to replace, what sources justify the changes, etc. If you've been making your changes to the article in the way you've been asking questions here, it is entirely understandable why others cannot figure out what you are trying to do. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:29, 26 January 2023
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
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.
January 19
Goethe poem
This is from "Great Writings of Goethe" (1956) by Stephen Spender, p. 46. Any idea where to find the original in German? The translation below comes across as not very good.
Reviewer (Goethe, 1776)
Translated by Michael Hamburger
There was a fellow dropped in for lunch,
Didn't bother me much, I just let him munch
Had the kind of meal I have every day
The fellow gorged himself mightily
And for dessert ate up what I'd stored
But as soon as he'd left my larder cleared,
The devil led him to my neighbor's, where
After this fashion he discussed the fare:
"The soup might have been more piquantly spiced,
The roast more crisp, the wine better iced."
A curse on that damnable knave, that evil-doer!
Put the dog to sleep. He's a book reviewer.
Thanks. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:720 (talk) 09:15, 1 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Rezensent. --Lambiam 09:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, Michael Hamburger was a well respected translator and I don't think it's appropriate to describe any translation by him as "not very good". --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Whether it is appropriate to rate a translation as "not very good" should depend more on the quality of the translation than on the respect bestowed upon the translator. But rating a translation without knowing the original may not be a good idea. --Lambiam 13:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I actually find the translation pretty good - the style of the original is a bit doggerel (not at all the elevated style you'd expect from Goethe in his more serious poems), and the translation matches that fairly well, as far as I can judge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, Michael Hamburger was a well respected translator and I don't think it's appropriate to describe any translation by him as "not very good". --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:720 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
story of American States
When was the first Wisconsin reduced by its own preceeding governments? Was it trumblesOme of was it just history? Foster Vomabach (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your question. "reduced by its own preceeding governments" seems to be a meaningless phrase. Can you give more details of what you actually meant? --Jayron32 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I detect a whiff of troll scent. --Lambiam 13:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- See: Wisconsin Territory, which discusses the border changes prior to Wisconsin becoming a State. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
January 20
Where can I find US presidential appointments?
The Library of Congress has an amazing archive of congressional proceedings, the record, the laws, the whole deal. But I'm struggling with finding executive branch documents, relating to appointments for positions. For example, all the sources say John Henry Kinkead was appointed governor of Alaska by Chester A. Arthur on July 4, 1884. I just ... want to see the document. As good as the government is at serving legislative documents, it doesn't seem nearly as good with executive documents. Does anyone know ... I don't even know how to begin searching for it. 'old presidential appointment documents' brings me to the Compilation of Presidential Documents but that only has results from 1993. I don't even know how I would begin searching or referencing this document, but it must exist, right? Or must have at some point? Anyway. Grasping for any help I can find here. Would very much like some primary sourcing, because the third parties did not keep good records.
But it's an official document (or transmission or statement, not sure what form it took), there has to be some record of it. The closest I came was when I found a reference in the 1893 Congressional Record to the appointment of James Sheakley, but that was a recess appointment, and I suspect that's the only reason it was communicated to the senate. I haven't checked others, but the frustration with finding more primary info on Kinkead led me here. --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oho, looks like what I might be looking for is the "Executive Journal"? Found a promising link at [1] so here's hoping. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- No such appointment is found among a database of Arthur's presidential documents for the month of July 1884[2] (nor any other records in this database[3]). --Lambiam 14:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Attributed, possibly/probably apocryphal
In relation to quotations:
- Attributed means some source has claimed the person said/wrote this
- Apocryphal means the same, except scholars seriously doubt the truth of the claim, but have not categorically ruled it out as false.
I've come across a sort of hybrid descriptor:
- Attributed, possibly/probably apocryphal.
I don't see the point of it. If a quote is attributed, that means we simply don't know whether it's true or not. Anyone is free to research it and either confirm it or disprove it. But in the absence of anyone casting doubt on it, how can it be said to be "possibly or probably apocryphal"?
For context, the place I found this usage was in Gyles Brandreth's Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations, 5th ed., 2015 Thanks for your thoughts. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, can you clarify what you need references for? It isn't quite clear. Do you need references for the definitions of the terms "attributed" and "apocryphal"? It would be helpful to us trying to find references for you if we had a little more information. --Jayron32 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not the only place; Brandreth's predecessor Ned Sherrin did likewise,[4] and we see the same in Elizabeth Knowles' Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations.[5] All quotes that are not taken directly from a published work or speech by (or an interview with) the alleged enunciator, but are reported by someone else, are "attributed", but in many cases there is no reason to question the correctness of the report. The very act of writing "perhaps apocryphal" means the author of the compendium of quotations casts aspersions on the authenticity – whether by following some earlier doubting Thomas or because they could not find a more precise ascription (such as to a specific document or event), telltale signs of made-up attributions. Or, as Einstein put it, "most things I have said I haven't". Sherrin explained his use as follows:
A source note, usually including the specific date of the quotation, follows the author information. Quotations which are in general currency but which are not at present traceable to a specific source are indicated by ‘attributed’ in the source note; quotations which are popularly attributed to an author but whose authenticity is doubted are indicated by a note such as ‘perhaps apocryphal’.
[6] Brandreth merely followed suit. --Lambiam 14:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)- I'm pretty sure that was Yogi Berra and not Einstein... or was that the joke? --Jayron32 14:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a garbled version of the first full sentence Einstein spoke as a toddler, when he said, "Most things I will have said I haven't yet." --Lambiam 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- That would suggest that Berra borrowed that expression from Einstein, thus violating his own rule: "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Don't believe Yogi Berra. He's full of shit" --Mark Twain (attributed, possibly apocryphal) --Jayron32 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- "The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." (Abraham Lincoln) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Don't believe Yogi Berra. He's full of shit" --Mark Twain (attributed, possibly apocryphal) --Jayron32 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- That would suggest that Berra borrowed that expression from Einstein, thus violating his own rule: "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a garbled version of the first full sentence Einstein spoke as a toddler, when he said, "Most things I will have said I haven't yet." --Lambiam 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that was Yogi Berra and not Einstein... or was that the joke? --Jayron32 14:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Lambiam has nailed it, with my thanks. My only quibble with Sherrin, Brandreth and their ilk is that "apocryphal" includes the concept of "attributed", so there's no need to write "attributed, possibly apocryphal". Simply writing "possibly apocryphal" would seem to fit the bill nicely. But who am I to quibble with the Oxford monolith? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- In these compendious works the term attributed is used with a quite specific meaning: "not traceable to a source, yet generally attributed (to this specific attributee)". Some quotations that are deemed "perhaps apocryphal" can neverheless be traced to a source. For example, a quotation of Coolidge's summary of a sermon about sin is traced here to a 1933 book of 'short stories about "Cal"' compiled by John Hiram McKee. So as defined and used in these works the term is not redundant. However, the choice of the term attributed is indeed curious; this summary of a sermon is attributed to Coolidge, but not in this strange Oxonian sense defined (originally?) by Sherrin. As I assume that these works do not contain quotations that are both untraceable and not generally attributed to some specific attributee, they could have used untraceable instead. The next question then is whether untraceable quotations are not always also (not only "perhaps" but even) "probably apocryphal". "Untraceable" is definitely more concise than "attributed, perhaps apocryphal". --Lambiam 11:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can only agree. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
20 July plot
The Nazi investigation had concluded that Heinz Brandt and Leonhard von Moellendorff weren't members of the conspiration, but some hystorics ipotized the contrary. Can you find official sources about they weren't? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the second person, the hypothesis he was involved in the conspiracy appears only once, in History Today, 1953. Other found references are repeats after that. The assertion comes from a journalist's comment, who is also known as an historian, although as a literary historian. My reader's impression is purely that his narrative flows better with the comment than it would without. --Askedonty (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, but can you found an attendible source which definitely tell he wasn't a conspirator? And also for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would more readily name not to be a conspirator, one way or the other, a non-existent notion in totalitarian systems. Even Heinrich Himmler tried to defect at one point. --Askedonty (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- In any way, can you search if there are sources about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- It sounds like you would be meaning "comments", not sources. "Sicherheitsdienst" was not distributing certificates of exemptions, not without some serious pressure applied before. Von Moellendorff was not identified as having been awaiting orders of mutiny, that's all. --Askedonty (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Then for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- "One of those present in the conference room and injured during the blast would later be accused of being involved in the plot. General Adolf Heusinger (..)" [7]. A certificate regarding Brandt was delivered on the orders of Hitler to his family, for what this may be worth (apparently there must have been enquiries going on). --Askedonty (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Then for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- It sounds like you would be meaning "comments", not sources. "Sicherheitsdienst" was not distributing certificates of exemptions, not without some serious pressure applied before. Von Moellendorff was not identified as having been awaiting orders of mutiny, that's all. --Askedonty (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- In any way, can you search if there are sources about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- A positive proof of non-involvement is virtually impossible to give. It would need something like that Brandt and Moellendorff had been hospitalized since 1943, or had been travelling to Australia and did not return before 21 July. Kaltenbrunner, tasked with finding the conspirators, conducted a sweeping operation to find and eliminate officers who were not fully loyal to the Führer, also without specific evidence of actual involvement in the failed plot, having them executed by the thousands. So he did apparently not find anything that made him question Brandt's or Moellendorff's loyalty. That is about the extent of what can be said. --Lambiam 19:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would more readily name not to be a conspirator, one way or the other, a non-existent notion in totalitarian systems. Even Heinrich Himmler tried to defect at one point. --Askedonty (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, but can you found an attendible source which definitely tell he wasn't a conspirator? And also for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Who was Campbell-Gray
An unanswered question at Talk:Coronation of George V and Mary queries the provenance of the photographer who created File:Prince of Wales with Princess Mary 1911.png, which is given as Ian Douglas Campbell-Gray (1901-1946). Unless the royal family were employing a 10 year-old boy, this cannot be right. The image itself, copied from eBay, has the caption "taken (by Campbell-Gray) at Buckingham Palace...". The same image is at the National Portrait Gallery, but only listed as "Campbell-Gray". So can we get a positive i/d on this royal snapper? Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- The dates for Mr. Ian Douglas are wrong. This indicates that he was active from 1890 to 1920, which would have made it very likely he took said picture. --Jayron32 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Commons is wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- (ec) Campbell-Gray were a photographic studio, see this article. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually, it looks like that's not right. The credit Campbell-Gray is likely to a photography studio known as "Campbell Gray", which appears to have been named after two people, Campbell, and Gray. See [8], which lists the business as "Campbell-Gray Ltd" and a former name as "Campbell & Grey", the & implies to me these were two different dudes. --Jayron32 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks all. A. J. Campbell and C. E. Gray it is. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
January 21
"Cold water flat"
I had always thought that a "cold water flat" was exactly, what the expression means: a flat without hot water -unless you heat it on a stove, etc.. Wikipedia also has this definition and adds missing central heating; but recently I came upon the reference (forgot where), that this wasn't or is no longer strictly speaking the case. Is the expression now used for flats that once where "slum- dwellings", but are no longer? Or is this new idea simply wrong?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- In the UK I've only encountered the term in references (fact and fiction) to the pre-1960s, and would be surprised to see it employed today. I can't speak for other countries, but currently in the UK any dwelling without access to running hot water would be classed as "unfit for human habitation" and it would be illegal to rent it out. Central heating is not legally mandatory (and in the early 1980s I rented a flat in Scotland without it), but heating of some sort (such as radiant electric heaters) has to be present. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.179.175 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
1942 or 1945
Everywhere it is written that Subhas Chandra Bose died in 1945, but this article is from 1942
https://www.nytimes.com/1942/03/29/archives/indian-aiding-axis-reported-killed-subhas-chandra-bose-is-said-to.html Rambo XTerminator (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would just assume that the 1942 NYT report was incorrect. It happens, even with very reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- "On January 25th, Bose's family announced his disappearance. Subhas Chandra Bose remained somewhat of a mystery for over a year. Various rumours about him surfaced: he was staying at a retreat in the Himalayas; he was making secret deals with the Japanese; then, finally, on March 28, 1942, Reuters announced that he had been killed in a plance crash off Japan. Reuter's news release prophesied an event to come three years later." ([9]) --Soman (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- "In the spring of 1942 , there was a Reuters gaffe about the supposed death of Subhas Chandra Bose in an air accident . The whole nation was shaken with grief . The congress President and Gandhi sent telegrams of condolence to the aged mother of Bose . When the allegedly dead Indian leader broadcast a talk from Radio Berlin , there was an effort to disclaim responsibility for the report . Reuters thus did not command any respect from Prime Minister Nehru ." ([10]) --Soman (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- And indeed, you'll find Bose in the List of premature obituaries. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- He's listed there now; he was added after this discussion began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- He's listed there now; he was added after this discussion began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- And indeed, you'll find Bose in the List of premature obituaries. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- "In the spring of 1942 , there was a Reuters gaffe about the supposed death of Subhas Chandra Bose in an air accident . The whole nation was shaken with grief . The congress President and Gandhi sent telegrams of condolence to the aged mother of Bose . When the allegedly dead Indian leader broadcast a talk from Radio Berlin , there was an effort to disclaim responsibility for the report . Reuters thus did not command any respect from Prime Minister Nehru ." ([10]) --Soman (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- "On January 25th, Bose's family announced his disappearance. Subhas Chandra Bose remained somewhat of a mystery for over a year. Various rumours about him surfaced: he was staying at a retreat in the Himalayas; he was making secret deals with the Japanese; then, finally, on March 28, 1942, Reuters announced that he had been killed in a plance crash off Japan. Reuter's news release prophesied an event to come three years later." ([9]) --Soman (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Players Ball
If the "Players Ball" is an annual gathering of pimps, how come the police don't arrest everyone there? In the US, as I understand it, pimping/procurement is illegal everywhere. Isn't attending a convention of pimps reasonable suspicion of committing this crime? How come the attendees aren't all investigated, arrested, and tried? Or is the word "pimp" metaphorical? 135.180.244.18 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know they aren't investigated? Aside from that, what do they do at those conventions besides talking? Freedom of speech, ya know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- A person's mere presence at such an event cannot be considered evidence of guilt of a crime. The arresting authorities would likely be massively sued for false arrest. --Lambiam 08:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be kept in mind also is that mere suspicion of having committed a crime is not enough to arrest someone. The police need to have enough evidence to turn the case over to a prosecutor who will lay charges. A suspect cannot be held for more than a short time if there are no formal charges against him/her. --Xuxl (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, there wouldn't just be pimps at such a ball, there would also be innocent friends of pimps. (Which would make a good band name.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be kept in mind also is that mere suspicion of having committed a crime is not enough to arrest someone. The police need to have enough evidence to turn the case over to a prosecutor who will lay charges. A suspect cannot be held for more than a short time if there are no formal charges against him/her. --Xuxl (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Police have limited resources, and do not investigate every crime. Violent crime tends to take up the bulk of investigation resources, while certain types of drug crimes, because of their potential for revenue generation (especially with U.S. laws around civil forfeiture). Nuisance crimes, like prostitution, petty theft, minor drug use, vandalism, etc. do not often get investigated. That's just the way it is. --Jayron32 13:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- It would be nice to live in a society where the Police's resources were sufficient to investigate every crime. Are there any such today, outside of very small, isolated communities? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.212.198 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- NB the original question is about pimps, who are frequently violent or coercive, rather than mere nuisances. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the original question - the police have to know where and when the ball is held to arrest the participants. If it's held in a private venue and not advertised except by personal invitation, they may not know. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
January 22
Lame duck length
Is the circa 76.5 to 82.5 days between POTUS election night and inauguration long, short or typical by fixed date presidential system standards? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- In France, it is about 10 days (French presidential inauguration), it was one week in 2017 and two weeks in 2022, for instance. --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- In Brazil, general elections (including the first round of the presidential election) are held in the first week of October, while inauguration day is 1 January. If Lula had already been elected in the first round on 2 October 2022, the inauguration would have taken place 91 days after his election. The need for a runoff election shortened this by four weeks. --Lambiam 08:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- The 2014 Indonesian presidential election took place on 9 July 2014, while the president-elect was inaugurated on 20 October 2014, 103 days later. The 2019 Indonesian general election, including the presidential election, was held on 17 April 2019; the re-inauguration of the president took place on 20 October 2019, 217 days later (more than seven months). --Lambiam 08:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- The delay used to be much longer in the U.S., with the inauguration not taking place until March 4th. Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed an amendment to change that after having been frustrated by the long waiting time before he could get his policies implemented following his decisive win in the 1932 United States presidential election.[11] Xuxl (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite fit the timeline. FDR was inaugurated March 4 1933, but the 20th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 2, 1932 and ratified by the states January 22, 1933. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's because of the wording, "Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." So even if it had been ratified prior to January 20, it still wouldn't have taken effect until October 15. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite fit the timeline. FDR was inaugurated March 4 1933, but the 20th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 2, 1932 and ratified by the states January 22, 1933. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm interested in your terminology. Lame duck (politics) refers to an outgoing incumbent, not to an incoming electee. For example, for the entirety of a US president's second and final 4-year term, they're considered a lame duck because it's known with constitutional certainty that their time in office is drawing to a close, up to 4 years before it actually draws to a close. They don't become a lame duck only on election day when their successor is elected. They become a lame duck on the previous election day, when they themselves were elected for the second and final time. Perhaps you had this mind, but it wasn't clear. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- As we define the term, it refers to an elected official whose successor has already been elected or will be soon. Can we say that an event bound to happen in four years' time will happen "soon"? --Lambiam 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is an angels-on-pinheads question. I'll give you another example. The Australian Constitution provides that a parliament continues for a maximum three years after it first meets, but it can be ended sooner. In our history, only one parliament has ever gone the full three years (1910-13). All the others were ended early, in strict constitutional terms. But commentators only talk of "early elections" when it's significantly early, not just a week or two early. Except, nobody has ever defined where the dividing line is, and that has often been the stuff of political argy-bargy, the opposition demanding the prime minister justify why he's called an "early election" and the PM saying it's not really early, it's still in the ballpark. That sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- As we define the term, it refers to an elected official whose successor has already been elected or will be soon. Can we say that an event bound to happen in four years' time will happen "soon"? --Lambiam 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- That became true in the 1950s when term limits were imposed on the presidency. Where the term used to be used most often was when congressmen who had lost their elections would continue to work on legislation until their terms expired. We had that situation this past election, when the Democrats continued work on last-minute legislation before the House became Republican. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- 4.2 years left is a lot less powerless than 0.2. In the modern era it's very hard to override a president's veto of a budget. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- It also depends on the makeup of the House and Senate. Obama lost his congressional majority, and so did Trump. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- True true. Then we get government shutdowns or default crises till one side caves (amazingly not always (yet?)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- When have Democrats ever shut down the federal government or threatened a debt ceiling default?? AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Never? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- SMW used "one side", which admits a one-sided meaning. --Lambiam 11:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's a list at Government shutdowns in the United States, at several occurred when both houses of Congress were under control of the Democratic Party, and one 1980 United States federal government shutdown, occurred when they had control of both houses AND the Presidency. It has happened under just about any permutation of party control of the Senate, House, and Presidency you can think of. --Jayron32 13:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- When have Democrats ever shut down the federal government or threatened a debt ceiling default?? AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- True true. Then we get government shutdowns or default crises till one side caves (amazingly not always (yet?)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- It also depends on the makeup of the House and Senate. Obama lost his congressional majority, and so did Trump. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
January 23
Can anybody share more facts and figures of wars fought by the state from 1337-1803? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.53.84 (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry you didn’t get a reply. Can you suggest any other search terms we might use? All I found for Kutlehar was a list of royal names, and even Kangra just brings up passing mentions in books like History of the Punjab Hill States, India’s Princely States and Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
A Taoist quote source
I read The Essential Tao by Thomas F. Cleary and it was great. But I'm looking for info about a specific Taoist master he quotes, Fu-kuei-tzu.
I cannot find anything about this person online, so I'm curious if they're a legendary figure or real. GoutComplex (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's a Wade-Giles type transcription. You may have better luck searching the web if you can find the Pinyin equivalent. AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is a work or app that can facilitate transcriptions between the various Romanisation schemes? As a small boy in Hong Kong I was exposed to Wade-Giles (I think; or possibly Yale; or both), and though I have forgotton 99.5% of the 'Cantonese' I learned, I still find other romanizations harder to grasp. At least I don't fall into the trap of thinking that Pinyin letters always have the same value as in Western languages. "Bay Jing" indeed! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.212.198 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have the most recent edition at hand, but The Chicago Manual of Style used to include a table of Wade-Giles–pinyin equivalents. Something similar can be seen in Pinyin#Comparison with other orthographies. Deor (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is a work or app that can facilitate transcriptions between the various Romanisation schemes? As a small boy in Hong Kong I was exposed to Wade-Giles (I think; or possibly Yale; or both), and though I have forgotton 99.5% of the 'Cantonese' I learned, I still find other romanizations harder to grasp. At least I don't fall into the trap of thinking that Pinyin letters always have the same value as in Western languages. "Bay Jing" indeed! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.212.198 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is relevant, but fu-kuei is a possible transcription of 復歸 (fùguī, "return"), mentioned in the article Fan (Daoism), and tzu is a common transcription (as in Lao Tzu) of 子. Another candidate for the first two bits is 富貴 (fùguì, "wealthy, respectable, splendid"). Yet another possibility: 福貴 (fúguì), seen in some names. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. But I still can't find it. The source was written by an academic, so I assume the texts he quotes are unreleased and sitting at a university. Or just in book form still and not converted to digital. GoutComplex (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
January 24
An "economist"?
Around several months ago, I came across a discussion regarding whether or not an article of a male official who used to work in the Obama administration should describe him as an economist just because most of the reliable sources say so regardless of his actual educational qualification. The question of whether or not Elon Musk is an engineer also got brought up. I forgot whom this discussion was referring to and I routinely deleted my browsing history. Who might this be? StellarHalo (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Jared Bernstein has a BA in music and a PhD in Social Welfare. Does the latter count as an educational qualification in economics? In any case Paul Krugman called him an excellent candidate for serving on Obama's economics advisory board.[12] Gene Sperling's academic education was in law (JD), after which he "attended" Wharton Business School,[13] which sounds to me as implying he did not graduate. John G. Walsh has a Masters in Public Policy, for which the curriculum will have included Macroeconomics 101. --Lambiam 10:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Brian May's highest academic qualifications is in astrophysics, and he has no formal training as a musician. Are we allowed to refer to him as a guitarist or a musician even though he has no degree from a music program? --Jayron32 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note that the OP didn't suggest a preference one way or another; they just wanted to ID the person who was being discussed. Matt Deres (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Jared Bernstein is about little else than whether he should or should not be called an economist. See also this edit, later reverted. --Lambiam 07:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- A person can be called an "X" if reliable sources call a person an "X". It is not more complicated than that. If reliable sources should not call such a person an "X", then what people need to do is petition all of those sources to write retractions to fix their errors. Short of that, Wikipedia is bound to reflect what reliable sources say about a person, and not what randos who show up at Wikipedia articles have to say about them. --Jayron32 14:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Jared Bernstein is about little else than whether he should or should not be called an economist. See also this edit, later reverted. --Lambiam 07:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note that the OP didn't suggest a preference one way or another; they just wanted to ID the person who was being discussed. Matt Deres (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
US casualties in the Pacific War
Why even in Western sources data on US losses in the Pacific War are so different. Now in an article about the Pacific War they write an underestimated number of 90 thousand, some sources on Wikipedia even talk about 300 thousand dead and dead, which seems overestimated. After all, the total loss of the United States in World War II is 407 thousand dead, while in the war with Germany on all fronts 185 thousand dead. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- So, if we're going to answer your question, we're going to have to read the actual articles you are reading. Please provide us links to the articles where you found this information so we can better answer your questions. --Jayron32 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- About 300 thousand killed Americans answered me here. And about 90 thousand, these are the numbers in the article about the Pacific War. As for the figure of 185 thousand killed in the war with Germany, I calculated this from articles about the Western, North African and Italian fronts Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I've got it. From Pacific War, note 3 and ref 19, you're seeing ~300k casualties and ~90k deaths. These two things are not the same; casualties includes woundings, captures, and other events that render someone unavailable for duty, in addition to deaths. As with many questions of numbers, rankings, statistics, and the like, context and nuance matters. As Jayron notes, any further need for clarification should be accompanied by the specific numbers you're looking to compare and their sources. (edit to add: you may also be interested in World_War_II_casualties both for the high-level summary of why casualty quantification is difficult and for the by-nation endnotes summarizing the data, such as for the US) — Lomn 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
British losses in World War II
What was the bloodiest front for Britain during World War II? Just confusion in numbers, according to the wiki articles, the British lost: 35 thousand killed in Africa, 24 thousand in Italy, 41 thousand on the Western Front, 86 thousand on the Pacific Front, and a maximum of 70 thousand in the Atlantic. But where did "another 130 thousand corpses" go if the UK lost a total of 384 thousand people? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Same as above. If we're going to answer your question, you first need to provide us with links so we can read the same text you are reading where those numbers appear. --Jayron32 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_II)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_campaign_(World_War_II)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- So, in the first article, I don't see anywhere that has "41 thousand" British soldiers dead. I ctrl-F for 41, and saw nothing at all with that figure. I did the same ofr "24" in the Italian Campaign article, and "86" on the Pacific War article and so on. It doesn't look like you read those numbers in those articles; they just aren't there. You still haven't told us where you got your numbers from. --Jayron32 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- On the Western Front, 11 thousand British died in 1940-1941 and 30 thousand in 1944-1945 according to the result of "41", about the Italian and Pacific fronts, yes, I was a little mistaken: 18 thousand in Italian and 82 thousand in the Pacific. Anonymous said about 300 thousand in this directory. I'm more interested in US casualties in the Pacific. Since the article about the Pacific War takes into account only combat losses. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- So, in the first article, I don't see anywhere that has "41 thousand" British soldiers dead. I ctrl-F for 41, and saw nothing at all with that figure. I did the same ofr "24" in the Italian Campaign article, and "86" on the Pacific War article and so on. It doesn't look like you read those numbers in those articles; they just aren't there. You still haven't told us where you got your numbers from. --Jayron32 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Original volumes collated in "The English Reports"
I recently built s:Portal:The_English_Reports over on Wikisource, but was wanting some help from other contributors here, in adding links to the original works, which were collated into "The English Reports".
Do any of the contributors here know of of online sources (Hathi/Google Books/IA) for the missing volumes, and for the original Reports published prior to the compiling of the English Reports in 1866 or so?
It would be convenient if contributors that can match up the abbreviations with original scans, could assist in updating the portal at Wikisource. Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, is this the same as English Reports? At the bottom of that article, there is a link to the full text at http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/ I'm not sure how to match that to your request as it looks fairly complete but is organized by year instead of by volume like your list. Can you perhaps explain further which pieces you'd like help finding, if this isn't what you need? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
January 25
from the article "In January 2023, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen saidthat minting a trillion dollar coin was not on the table as a solution to the 2023 United States debt-ceiling crisis and possible U.S. default on its debt, because the Federal Reserve would be unlikely to accept it." Question: If Yellen is right(is she?), why does Federal Reserve have the right to refuse acceptance of the coin? Rich (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Fed has statutory independence from the US government, and is empowered to make decisions that maintain a positive U.S. economy. I doubt that you'd find a specific law, rule, or regulation written down that says "The Fed must accept a trillion dollar coin from the U.S. government as payment", however, given their independence and mission, and the likely absolute disaster such a transaction would have on the U.S. economy, then no, they would not accede to such a silly political stunt. As noted at the Wikipedia article Federal Reserve and quoting their own statement on the matter "the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."" (bold mine). Clearly, whether or not to accept such a coin as payment qualifies as a "monetary policy decision". --Jayron32 12:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Imagine if the head of the Fed had that trillion-dollar coin in his pocket and absent-mindedly put it into a vending machine to get a Twix bar or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like the basis for a good cartoon, or even a live-action farcical comedy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.208.82 (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs)
- <<-: Rich (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The vending machine would most likely just spit it back out since it probably wouldn't recognize it as a valid coin. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Would the people currently on the Fed consider it a disastrous for the economy, or is that your opinion? Would they consider it a silly stunt, as silly as refusing to raise the debt limit? Rich (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Janet Yellen served as Chair of the Federal Reserve. I would say she would know better than anyone. If she said that the Fed could refuse to accept such a coin, then she's as right on that as anyone in the world. If you believe she is wrong about that, you need to take it up with her, and not me. --Jayron32 14:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- A rapid superficial rationalization based on reading Wikipedia is showing conflicting circumstances, considering at least the current state of the economy. See Trillion-dollar_coin#Inflation risks. --Askedonty (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- 31 U.S. Code § 5103 states that United States coins are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.[14] This seems to imply that all debts for which the lender would seek relief in a US court in case of the US defaulting can be settled with newly minted money. --Lambiam 16:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- While true, guess who gets to decide the Monetary policy of the United States, including the "policies related to the minting & printing of money"? I'll give you a hint, Janet Yellen used to be the chair of that organization. So while yes, the U.S. code does say that official United States coins are legal tender for paying off such debts, the Fed is in charge of deciding to mint such a coin in the first place. So we're back to square 1. Yellen is an authoritative source on what the Fed will and won't do with regards to U.S. monetary policy, and when she speaks on such matters, she can be trusted to know what she's talking about. Certainly more than me. If she says "It truly is not by any means to be taken as a given that the Fed would do it, and I think especially with something that's a gimmick...The Fed is not required to accept it, there's no requirement on the part of the Fed. It's up to them what to do"[15] I think we can trust her stance as authoritative on the matter. --Jayron32 16:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "who" that gets to decide is ultimately congress and/or the executive. The Fed was created by Congress, and as Alan Greenspan once said in testimony to it, remains the fiscal agent of the Treasury. Central Bank "independence" is basically just a very successful illusion and scam. In the ridiculous situation of Congress refusing to raise the debt limit, the arguments are very strong that the President has a constitutional responsibility to prevent default, which the 5th and 14th amendments and judicial precedents entirely oppose. But today's US government is incredibly irresponsible in all its branches, including the fictional fourth branch of the Fed. Yellen's statement should be considered in that regard. Her stance is not authoritative. Refusal leading to default is the disastrous stunt, not acceptance once the executive has decided to follow that course. I do not think that a reasonably neutral court or any body looking at the law and past practice would consider the Fed to have the power to refuse. I do not know whether such courts, especially at the top, still exist in the USA.John Z (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Why is the 5th amendment involved? i thought that was basically a person can refuse to incriminate themself.Rich (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that has to do with monetary policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible that one could interpret the Takings Clause—
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
—as requiring the government not to default on its domestic loans. If the government defaulted on such loans, it would in a sense be[taking] private property
(the money loaned to the government)without just compensation
(repayment of the loan with interest). I don't know if this interpretation has been adopted by the courts. Shells-shells (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)- That has to do with Eminent domain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible that one could interpret the Takings Clause—
- I don't see anything in Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that has to do with monetary policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, ultimately Congress holds the authority to pass laws to do whatever it wants. It can abolish the Fed, compel it to to its bidding, etc. etc. However, absent additional direction in the form of Congress passing laws, the Fed is treated as an independent agency that has the power to act on its own to set U.S. monetary policy free from interference from the rest of the Government. There is, of course, an element of realpolitik here, and it's foolish to think that everything that is supposed to happen on paper does so as it is written. However, at the same time, Yellen and others in the Fed do speak authoritatively about what the Fed will/won't or can/cannot do. If anyone has something authoritative to say on the matter, it's the people doing the actual job. The trillion dollar coin trick is not particularly taken seriously be Yellen because she knows it's a silly idea. Fiscal policy (taxing and spending) is not the Fed's problem anyways. What Greenspan is really talking about is not monetary policy, it is fiscal policy. Running up debt, or paying it down, is a Congressional matter, and that's what Greenspan is saying. The Fed's job is to manage money supply, not tell Congress how to spend its tax revenue. --Jayron32 19:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Fifth is relevant because it prohibits taking private property. There's a long line of precedents on the inviolability of the public debt, going back to John Marshall before the 14th Amendment. Doesn't mention the Big Coin, but Robert Hockett's Stop the Charade: The Federal Budget Is Its Own ‘Debt-Ceiling’ is good background. The point is that Congress is issuing contradictory commands to the Executive. Especially with the US Constitution on his side, as it would be, the President has great power to order the Treasury and the Fed what to do. That can include the Big Coin, for which Congress in its infinite wisdom has already provided authorizing legislation. My faded recollection is that that or other legislation provides that the Fed MUST accept it, besides.John Z (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hm. Let's see whose stance on the legitimacy of the trillion dollar coin should we believe. On the one hand, we have John Z, an anonymized Wikipedia user, whose stance on the matter is supported by, let's check my notes here... "faded recollection". On the other side of the discussion, we have Janet Yellen, who worked for the Fed starting in 1977-1978, spent the next decade and a half as a working research economist at several prestigious universities, served on the Fed Board of Governors for three more years, was CEO of the Fed Res Bank of San Francisco for 3 years, and returned to the Board of Governors, first as vice chair for four years and then as chair for four years. Tough call. Decades of experience working for the Federal Reserve at all levels. Faded recollection. Lets call it a coin flip. No way to tell who to trust here. --Jayron32 00:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Fifth is relevant because it prohibits taking private property. There's a long line of precedents on the inviolability of the public debt, going back to John Marshall before the 14th Amendment. Doesn't mention the Big Coin, but Robert Hockett's Stop the Charade: The Federal Budget Is Its Own ‘Debt-Ceiling’ is good background. The point is that Congress is issuing contradictory commands to the Executive. Especially with the US Constitution on his side, as it would be, the President has great power to order the Treasury and the Fed what to do. That can include the Big Coin, for which Congress in its infinite wisdom has already provided authorizing legislation. My faded recollection is that that or other legislation provides that the Fed MUST accept it, besides.John Z (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Why is the 5th amendment involved? i thought that was basically a person can refuse to incriminate themself.Rich (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The United States Mint is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury and as such is not under the control of the Federal Reserve. Associated with the Mint is a Public Enterprise Fund. 31 U.S. Code § 5136 provides that the Federal Reserve must provide receipts to the Fund for the sale of coins;[16] paying off a debt should qualify as a sale. --Lambiam 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The mint, as part of the Treasury, is responsible for actually making the coins, like the physical process. But who authorizes the Mint to make any specific number of coins? Which is to say, who is allowed to place the order at the Mint to fire up the coin presses, and who controls which and how many coins are made? ""The job of actually printing the money that people withdraw from ATMs and banks belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), which designs and manufactures all paper money in the U.S. (The U.S. Mint produces all coins.) However, the amount of currency printed by the BEP each year is determined by the Fed," So, in order to make any putative, legal tender, "trillion dollar coin", the Fed would have to make the decision to order such a coin to be made, under currently existing processes. The Treasury only gets to produce currency if the Fed asks them to. They aren't under any authorization to "free lance" and just start making currency all on their own. Under current policy (and yes, I know, Congress can pass new laws, yada yada yada), this still has to go through the Fed, who has the final say on currency in the U.S. Janet Yellen (who I still have to keep reminding everyone, was an actual chair of the Fed, and should be expected to know her shit in this regard) is likely the most authoritative source on what the Fed will or can do in these situations, and she, knowing the operation of and the policies about, these matters, is to be trusted on this. Still. Randos on the internet cherrypicking policy to support their pet theories are less reliable than an actual Fed chair on these matters. --Jayron32 00:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you explain why you say the Platinum coin would be disastrous for the economy of the United States? Thanks, Rich107.3.112.138 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion on the matter; lacking the expertise to have one. Yellen is against the idea, and I'm just following her lead, being the one who knows more about these issues. If you want to know why she thinks it's a bad idea, ask her. --Jayron32 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yellen's statement is that she doubts the Fed would accept the coin if the Treasury were to deposit it at the Fed to draw its value. The US is not in debt with the Federal Reserve. While I'm not saying it is a good idea, I think that (at least formally) debts can be settled by paying with (high-valued) coins that are legal tender, obviously in lower denominations than 1G$. --Lambiam 12:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion on the matter; lacking the expertise to have one. Yellen is against the idea, and I'm just following her lead, being the one who knows more about these issues. If you want to know why she thinks it's a bad idea, ask her. --Jayron32 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The source you quote is only about printing money. By 31 U.S. Code § 5112 (k), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to mint and issue platinum bullion coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.[17] --Lambiam 12:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you explain why you say the Platinum coin would be disastrous for the economy of the United States? Thanks, Rich107.3.112.138 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The mint, as part of the Treasury, is responsible for actually making the coins, like the physical process. But who authorizes the Mint to make any specific number of coins? Which is to say, who is allowed to place the order at the Mint to fire up the coin presses, and who controls which and how many coins are made? ""The job of actually printing the money that people withdraw from ATMs and banks belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), which designs and manufactures all paper money in the U.S. (The U.S. Mint produces all coins.) However, the amount of currency printed by the BEP each year is determined by the Fed," So, in order to make any putative, legal tender, "trillion dollar coin", the Fed would have to make the decision to order such a coin to be made, under currently existing processes. The Treasury only gets to produce currency if the Fed asks them to. They aren't under any authorization to "free lance" and just start making currency all on their own. Under current policy (and yes, I know, Congress can pass new laws, yada yada yada), this still has to go through the Fed, who has the final say on currency in the U.S. Janet Yellen (who I still have to keep reminding everyone, was an actual chair of the Fed, and should be expected to know her shit in this regard) is likely the most authoritative source on what the Fed will or can do in these situations, and she, knowing the operation of and the policies about, these matters, is to be trusted on this. Still. Randos on the internet cherrypicking policy to support their pet theories are less reliable than an actual Fed chair on these matters. --Jayron32 00:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "who" that gets to decide is ultimately congress and/or the executive. The Fed was created by Congress, and as Alan Greenspan once said in testimony to it, remains the fiscal agent of the Treasury. Central Bank "independence" is basically just a very successful illusion and scam. In the ridiculous situation of Congress refusing to raise the debt limit, the arguments are very strong that the President has a constitutional responsibility to prevent default, which the 5th and 14th amendments and judicial precedents entirely oppose. But today's US government is incredibly irresponsible in all its branches, including the fictional fourth branch of the Fed. Yellen's statement should be considered in that regard. Her stance is not authoritative. Refusal leading to default is the disastrous stunt, not acceptance once the executive has decided to follow that course. I do not think that a reasonably neutral court or any body looking at the law and past practice would consider the Fed to have the power to refuse. I do not know whether such courts, especially at the top, still exist in the USA.John Z (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- While true, guess who gets to decide the Monetary policy of the United States, including the "policies related to the minting & printing of money"? I'll give you a hint, Janet Yellen used to be the chair of that organization. So while yes, the U.S. code does say that official United States coins are legal tender for paying off such debts, the Fed is in charge of deciding to mint such a coin in the first place. So we're back to square 1. Yellen is an authoritative source on what the Fed will and won't do with regards to U.S. monetary policy, and when she speaks on such matters, she can be trusted to know what she's talking about. Certainly more than me. If she says "It truly is not by any means to be taken as a given that the Fed would do it, and I think especially with something that's a gimmick...The Fed is not required to accept it, there's no requirement on the part of the Fed. It's up to them what to do"[15] I think we can trust her stance as authoritative on the matter. --Jayron32 16:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Imagine if the head of the Fed had that trillion-dollar coin in his pocket and absent-mindedly put it into a vending machine to get a Twix bar or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Code word for the letter I
India is the official code word for the letter I. But some people who otherwise use the NATO phonetic alphabet use Indigo instead of India. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not every organization uses the NATO alphabet as-is, and not every time you see people using words-for-letters are they even trying to use the NATO alphabet, so there is a LOT of variation on this. This seems to indicate that in certain British contexts, some organizations either have, in the past, used Indigo for "I", or some may even do so today. Some sources indicate the RAF may have used it: [18], and some indicate that British police forces may use it: [19]. There may very well be other organizations using their own system that uses Indigo as well. --Jayron32 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- See Spelling alphabet for a number of alternatives, though Indigo is not listed there. I understand (but cannot provide a source) that when communicating using a phonetic alphabet in Pakistan, it is considered tactless to use India for 'I', and that Indigo is an acceptable alternative. -- Verbarson talkedits 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
January 26
Limited-use currency
There was a summit of latin american presidents some days ago, and there was a proposal to make a common currency between Argentina and Brazil. People then compared it to the most familiar example of that, the Euro. So then they clarified that no, Argentina and Brazil would keep their currencies, the Peso and the Real. This new currency (let's name it "real peso" to ease the discussion) would be used only in international trade.
Meaning: Alice from Argentina wants to buy a foo from Bob, from Brazil. Alice uses her Pesos to buy Real Pesos and pay the foo with them. Bob gets those real pesos in Brazil and changes them for Reales. And that's all. You can't use the peso real at either country to pay for things in local stores, taxes or whatever.
So, the question: is there an example of such a currency somewhere else? A "special" currency that is no country's national currency? Cambalachero (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- See Foreign exchange certificate. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, when the Soviet Union engaged in international trade, the instruments used basically had no relationship whatsoever to ordinary ruble bills and kopek coins used in daily life inside the Soviet Union. AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Another obvious example is a bullion coin which is a tradable repository of precious metals that has a legal face value as currency that is a tiny percentage of the value of the coin as melted down as bullion. The face value is artificial in most senses, except as a government endorsement of the weight and purity of the precious metal (usually gold). Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, when the Soviet Union engaged in international trade, the instruments used basically had no relationship whatsoever to ordinary ruble bills and kopek coins used in daily life inside the Soviet Union. AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The International Monetary Fund uses "Special Drawing Rights" as an internal unit of account, though these are not a currency that is actually circulated anywhere. Related: Bancor. The international dollar is another special-case unit of account. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- See also Large denominations of United States currency for US examples. Many of the large denomination currencies issued in the U.S. were not intended for public daily use. As noted in that article, the 1934 denominations from $100 up to $10,000 were only in use for intragovernmental transactions, such as between branches of the Federal Reserve system. By the mid 1940s, these had ceased to be useful and have mostly been taken out of circulation, except the few held by museums or collectors. --Jayron32 13:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Scrap iron call
What instrument is used in this audio file - is it a trumpet, a bugle, or something else? Or impossible to say?
From a musicological PoV, how should we describe the notes - are they "atonal", "discordant", or what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is neither a trumpet nor a bugle, but a bit of pipe being sounded, perhaps with a trumpet mouthpiece, or perhaps not even that. The notes are part of the harmonic series as you'd hear from a natural horn. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Country abbreviations used as unofficial, but usual country codes
Although the Central African Republic has a consistent 3-letter country code CAF among institutions (exception: FIFA, here CTA), many sources use the abbreviation CAR as de facto country code. This appears similar to FRG formerly used for West Germany (BRD in German). What other examples for unofficial, but usual country codes like this are there? --KnightMove (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
And again about the losses in the Pacific War
In the discussion of the article, for some reason, the participants diligently ignore me, I provide links about all US losses in the war with Japan, while only US COMBAT losses are indicated there. All edits are corrected, you see, precisely because the Ministry of Defense is less authoritative than Clodfelter. Here are the links that the US losses are not delusional 90 thousand killed, but unfortunately 160 thousand killed and missing. Above figures based on Army Battle Casualties and Non-battle Deaths in World War II - http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html US Navy Personnel in World War II: Service and Casualty Statistics http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ww2_statistics.htm Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your source is considered primary, not the preferred WP:SECONDARY source. Both you and Micheal Clodfelter have looked at US government reports such as Army Battle Casualties etc., and you and Clodfelter have independently arrived at casualty figures for the Pacific War. Clodfelter has the great advantage of being published by McFarland and Company. That's why we go with his figures. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, based on a look at Talk:Pacific War and elsewhere on the Ref Desk, if you are able to pull together a variety of appropriate sources to support your position, you will have to lay out a clear through-line between them in a single place. For instance, clear sourcing explaining that personnel who are classified as "missing" are separate and additional from personnel who are classified as "killed" -- this is key to your contention and it's not at all clear to the casual observer that this should be the case; an individual can be known to have been killed and yet their body be missing. For example, at some point you have a link to an unreliable source that in turn links to the American Battle Monuments Commission that in turn describes MIA totals as including those buried at sea, which is clearly a not-insignificant number for the Pacific Theater of WW2. Pointing to numbers and doing math is not compelling data without the context that informs those numbers. — Lomn 16:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- And the fact that the article about the Pacific War indicates all the losses of Japan is normal, but Klodfelter indicates only combat losses, that is, the data is a priori underestimated. At the same time, my source speaks of combat and non-combat losses, and it is not Private John from Ohio who speaks about this, but the Department of Defense. Well, okay, let the American eye continue to be pleased with the data on underestimated losses, since no one wants to point out combat and non-combat losses in the article so stubbornly. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- As noted, lay out your whole case, supported, referenced, and explained, in one place (per the talk page comment of 18 Dec, and others). Note, for instance, that your Navy link at the top of this question is a 404 page. Secondly, lay out this case on the talk page rather than continuing to revert the active article. Perhaps there is space to build a case for listing non-combat theater losses separately from combat losses. You may also gain support if you're able to build a case that cross-references other articles; if the overarching World War II casualties article uses sources that include all casualties of interest and provides an appropriate theater breakout, referencing those sources -- and noting that the goal is to increase consistency within Wikipedia -- will likely be better received than continuing in your present course. — Lomn 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is not that the sources are not authoritative, it's that no one knows what you are trying to do; you're going about it in a confusing manner that makes it hard to understand your issues with the article as it is currently laid out. Use the article talk page to propose the changes you wish to make, being very clear and deliberate about what text you wish to write, what you intend to replace, what sources justify the changes, etc. If you've been making your changes to the article in the way you've been asking questions here, it is entirely understandable why others cannot figure out what you are trying to do. --Jayron32 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- As noted, lay out your whole case, supported, referenced, and explained, in one place (per the talk page comment of 18 Dec, and others). Note, for instance, that your Navy link at the top of this question is a 404 page. Secondly, lay out this case on the talk page rather than continuing to revert the active article. Perhaps there is space to build a case for listing non-combat theater losses separately from combat losses. You may also gain support if you're able to build a case that cross-references other articles; if the overarching World War II casualties article uses sources that include all casualties of interest and provides an appropriate theater breakout, referencing those sources -- and noting that the goal is to increase consistency within Wikipedia -- will likely be better received than continuing in your present course. — Lomn 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- And the fact that the article about the Pacific War indicates all the losses of Japan is normal, but Klodfelter indicates only combat losses, that is, the data is a priori underestimated. At the same time, my source speaks of combat and non-combat losses, and it is not Private John from Ohio who speaks about this, but the Department of Defense. Well, okay, let the American eye continue to be pleased with the data on underestimated losses, since no one wants to point out combat and non-combat losses in the article so stubbornly. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)