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.
July 17
Maximum high-speed duration and range of an F-14
How long (time/distance) would an F-14 have been able to go maximum speed? --KnightMove (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Our article doesn't seem to say, but a lot of the performance specs we do have apparently come from a handful of sources: this one from the US Navy, which also doesn't have the info and a book with these publishing details: Spick, Mike. "F-14 Tomcat". The Great Book of Modern Warplanes. St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing Company, 2000. I can't seem to find a viewable preview on line, but possibly it has the details you want. Maybe your library has it or could procure it? It's also available at Amazon, etc. A bit of a long shot, TBH; if the Navy didn't publish the details, I don't know who else would have it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Henrietta Müller is she a Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent ???
Hello, I strongly disagree over categories re-added by @Bedivere on Henrietta Müller. Henrietta Müller was born in Valparaiso in an English-German Family of expats. The family settled back in England and she went to college at Girton, then spent her entire life in England as did her family. There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc. I consider that she cannot be "categorized" as, I quote, "Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent". Any opinions ? (English is not my native language) Best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I asked this question in Tea House Wikipedia:Teahouse#Henrietta Müller is she a Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent ??? but was answered that it was not the proper page for this question. I try here (I'm not too familiar with help pages in WP:EN (I mainly contribute on WP:FR), thank you for your attention, best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Noting that I have no previous knowledge of this subject, my opinion is that most or all of those categories are appropriate for the article, since she was born and at least partially raised in Chile. They are not designed to strictly define Müller (since they are in the context of a much longer set of categories), but to aid Wikipedia users who may be exploring those topics and would want to be aware of her.
- The proper page to discuss this question is the Talk page of the article, where Bedivere (with whom you disagree) has already posted their reasons for adding/restoring (some of) them. The established procedure here is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Bedivere, in good faith, boldly added some of the categories, you disagreed with them and reverted the additions, now you should civilly discuss the matter on the Talk page (where others may care to join in) until you reach a mutually agreed compromise. You might want to read through Wikipedia:Categorization first. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, as a matter of fact, I want other advices, but I don't think many contributors follow this discussion page. According to me, it's irrelevant to state that Henrietta Müller could be a "Chilean expatriate in England", I don't want to make a fuss of it nor spend the day on it, if everybody here is confortable with making Henrietta Müller a Chilean journalist or Chilean suffragist, etc. let it be so, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- You could try posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography asking other editors to join the discussion, but that ought to be on the article's talk page. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Try having a variant Third culture kid added to Category Expatriates. TCK (Third culture kid) is already linked to in Existential migration. TCK could be used as an argument linking the subject to cosmopolitanism; either because she was excluded from recognition in the nations or was feeling so, or because she was missing a feeling of real regarding her statute as a Chilean national. Diplomatically speaking I'd probably delegate something of the categorization problem to Chilean women. Retrospectively they might prefer they needed her as suffragist. --Askedonty (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Muller was born in Chile, lived there 9 years, then moved to London, lived in London 2 years, and then moved back to Chile for a shorter period ([1]). At the time of her birth, and still, Chile practiced jus solis, so she was definitely a Chilean citizen at birth. That said, adding her to all kinds of Chilean bio categories might be disproportionate, I'd say it would suffice with just 'Chilean people of German descent'. --Soman (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, as a matter of fact, I want other advices, but I don't think many contributors follow this discussion page. According to me, it's irrelevant to state that Henrietta Müller could be a "Chilean expatriate in England", I don't want to make a fuss of it nor spend the day on it, if everybody here is confortable with making Henrietta Müller a Chilean journalist or Chilean suffragist, etc. let it be so, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
"Of special interest is a hand - illuminatd document headed ANANDAMAYA KOSA : ' A Theosophical gathering on September 4 , 1893 , ' inscribed with Sanskrit characters at the top and Sinhalese in the margins , and signed by the following thirteen representatives of different countries : Gyanendra N. Chakravarti ( Allahabad , India ) , H. Dhamapala ( Ceylon ) , Annie Besant ( Ireland ) , William Q. Judge ( Ireland ) , Henrietta Müller ( Chile ) ,... " ([2], p. 114) --Soman (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Difference between Lawyer and Advocate
What is the difference between a lawyer and an advocate? I was solving some interwiki link conflicts on Wikidata when I bumped across this. Reading the article, I can't make out any real difference. Can someone help? I hope this is the correct Reference Desk for it. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- An "advocate" would seem to be a more specific kind of "lawyer". --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Advocacy" is arguing your client's case in Court. In the U S the legal profession is not split, so attorneys can advise their clients and represent them in court. In Britain it is split - barristers take instructions from solicitors in the form of "briefs" which they argue in court on behalf of the solicitor's client (the plaintiff/defendant). Nowadays solicitors have limited audience rights. In Portugal (the only civil law country whose legal system I am familiar with) the profession is not split and both solicitadores and advogados appear to have rights of audience. 78.149.211.210 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good luck finding a barrister in Scotland! This is your regular reminder that Britain has more than one legal system. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Advocacy" is arguing your client's case in Court. In the U S the legal profession is not split, so attorneys can advise their clients and represent them in court. In Britain it is split - barristers take instructions from solicitors in the form of "briefs" which they argue in court on behalf of the solicitor's client (the plaintiff/defendant). Nowadays solicitors have limited audience rights. In Portugal (the only civil law country whose legal system I am familiar with) the profession is not split and both solicitadores and advogados appear to have rights of audience. 78.149.211.210 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- An advocate does not need to be a lawyer. For example, Court Appointed Special Advocates for children in the United States. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, to make it clearer, the term "advocate" is a term d'art which differs wildly between different legal systems. You need to indicate in which specific jurisdiction you are asking about. --Jayron32 11:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Russian classical dances
To any Russian users or anyone who speaks Russian or anyone who studied Russian culture, is the term “Russian classical dance” can be also described Russian traditional dances? Alastair McCapra aka McCapra wanted me to find a source that term can be also expanded into traditional dances of Russia. This is going to be really hard because I cannot speak Russian fluently. Please help. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- In Russian, the term "classical dance" means ballet, not traditional folk dances. See ru:Классический танец, for instance. Igor Moiseyev's type of dancing goes by the name of ru:Народно-сценический танец. Ghirla-трёп- 22:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Which of these categories would an investment account fall under?
I'm applying for a mortgage, and I'm currently listing my assets. I have an investment account I want to add, with the following dropbar options:
- Certificate of Deposit
- Checking Account
- Gift of Cash
- Gift of Property Equity
- Money Market Fund
- Mutual Funds
- Pending Net Sale Proceeds From Real Estate Assets
- Retirement Funds
- Savings Account
- Stock
Any idea which category I should pick for it? --Aabicus (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It depends on HOW your account is invested… it could fit in several categories: containing a mix of stocks, municipal bonds, mutual funds, Money Market funds etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Lastname "Prolife"
Abortion is a contentious issue in the US. One side of the debate is commonly called "pro-life".
I noticed that this US politican[3] has the lastname "Prolife". Is this lastname somehow related to the abortion debate (as in, the person intentionally changed their natural lastname to this one)?
Thanks for your help. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Based on his LinkedIn page… I would say an intentional change of name is likely. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reminds me of Byron (Low Tax) Looper lol! 68.4.99.100 (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Queen Christina's letter
The article Christina, Queen of Sweden shows this letter she wrote to Decio Azzolino. Note the long sequences of numbers in between the text. What do they mean? Is it some kind of code? JIP | Talk 22:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many sources on Google Books confirm that she used cipher to mask the most intimate passages in her letters to Azzolino. Ghirla-трёп- 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Our article Decio Azzolino says "Azzolino burnt most of their correspondence; about 80 letters have survived. Some details were written in a code that was decrypted by Carl Bildt in Rome around 1900". Here is the archived page used as a reference. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
July 18
2022 White House Correspondents' Dinner wordle joke
I was watching the 2022 White House Correspondents' Dinner and came across this joke:
And yet, the biggest deaths threats that you received is because there were two Ls in the wordle that day. [4]
Is this in reference to any specific incident? Was there actually a wordle puzzle with two Ls in the solution and people got worked up over it?
I googled "new york times two ls in wordle" and "new york times wordle death threats" and nothing relevant came up.
I understand that the The New York Times Company recently purchased Wordle. I understand that it could be the case that there were no specific incidents and that this is a general joke about "people getting too worked up over a puzzle game".Daniel T Wolters (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen people take it as offensive when the answer proved to be a word in American spelling (particularly since Wardle in British and the game used to be on a British web site). You know, who on Earth could imagine that COLOR was an actual word? (I don't remember what the specific words were.) Now, there are words where British and American versions differ in the number of L's (e.g. TRAVELLER), but I don't know of any that are 5 letters long, so I think this is something else. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- People get upset when the Wordle has more than one occurrence of a letter as it makes it trickier to determine the word. I don't think the letter L has a special meaning, apart from it being a reasonably common letter to show up twice in a word. Matt Deres (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I think I get the joke now. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not that it actually affects the joke, but a possible candidate is 19 March 2022, when the answer was ALLOW:
- "Today’s answer will be a tough one for many players, largely due to the duplicate consonant" - from one of many websites that give away the daily answer for those without scruples. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yes, I agree that it's very likely that ALLOW partly inspired the joke. The White House Correspondents' Dinner was April 20th, so roughly a month after the ALLOW puzzle. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is the [UK minus NI] south-biased?
Some people say north of the line between Norfolk bay and south of Wales bay is already North England, and the bishop ranked #2 after Canterbury who represents the north is only at York, not that far north. Maybe the population distribution of actually far north England is still affected by the ancient threat of Scottish invasion? Then in Scotland the biggest two cities are in the south, Aberdeen's significantly smaller than than either and not that north, Inverness is smaller than that and Wick even smaller. Also only a few million live in Scotland but like 60 million in England and Wales. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- By Norfolk bay, I presume you mean the Wash - not sure about south of Wales bay, is that the Bristol Channel or Cardigan Bay? Mikenorton (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the Wash, I forgot what you call it. And the Bristol Channel not Cardigan Bay. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- By Norfolk bay, I presume you mean the Wash - not sure about south of Wales bay, is that the Bristol Channel or Cardigan Bay? Mikenorton (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Population density is high in the south-east of England, due to the favourable climate and proximity to the capital city of the UK, London. The city has many industries and is a global financial centre". [5] Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why not the south-west? I mean the other side of London, near Winchester. Ticks all the same boxes. Edit: I checked the population densities and they're almost the same, so I guess yes, the rest of the south is affluent and crowded too. Card Zero (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- For Scotland, see Scottish Highlands. They're pretty, but generally get in the way. Card Zero (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Canadian border metropolises (metropoli?) are fairly close to rather large U.S. cities as well, though. See Great Lakes megalopolis, Pacific Northwest (Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle-Portland). Those two urban conglomerations contain the majority of the really large Canadian population centers; excepting the plains cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg, of which only the last is close to the U.S. border, and aren't parts of major megalopolises like the Great Lakes region is. The point is, your really not that correct; most Canadian cities near the U.S. border are parts of larger cross-border megalopolises and not isolated from U.S. population centers. --Jayron32 18:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'Ere Saggy, me ol' china plate,... as most Londoners know, Ver Norff begins at Watford Gap. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC) p.s. Norfolk bay?? I assume you meant The Wash.
- Also, it's beyond Hatfield. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.199 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The further you are from London and the Channel ports, the greater your costs if you want to move goods or people to where the money is. It's a vicious circle, the more people and businesses move to the Southeast, the greater the imperative is to be located there. For recent attempts to break the circle, see Levelling-up policy of the Boris Johnson government. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yay! Let's hear it for good old Michael "snake hips" Gove! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that they were successful attempts. Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yay! Let's hear it for good old Michael "snake hips" Gove! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot the name. The gap is essentially on the line. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's North–South divide in the United Kingdom. I didn't link to it before because it's annoyingly vague and says (I paraphrase) "nobody's sure where the line is exactly" and "maybe this isn't even a thing, except in some ways it is". Card Zero (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it were a thing, it would undoubtedly appear on our List of things that are things. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's North–South divide in the United Kingdom. I didn't link to it before because it's annoyingly vague and says (I paraphrase) "nobody's sure where the line is exactly" and "maybe this isn't even a thing, except in some ways it is". Card Zero (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The further you are from London and the Channel ports, the greater your costs if you want to move goods or people to where the money is. It's a vicious circle, the more people and businesses move to the Southeast, the greater the imperative is to be located there. For recent attempts to break the circle, see Levelling-up policy of the Boris Johnson government. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- This 2010 analysis contains a map, which shows the dividing line extending from the Bristol Channel up to the River Humber, although not including Hull. Worcester is in the north apparently and Leicester is in the south, although, as every self-respecting Midlander knows, they're both in the English Midlands, which tend to get forgotten in this debate. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's quite surprising, but that line in Figure 2.2 it's meant to show a "clear North-west– South-east gradient to life expectancy." So not quite the same as the economic North-South thing? (and yes, people do live longer in Norwich - it's so cold in the Winter, people there enter a state of human cryogenesis) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The boom in Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution, largely in the north/midlands, perhaps led to a rust belt effect after industrial decline? Card Zero (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure why there are two separate articles "North-South divide in the United Kingdom" and "North-South divide in England", but there are. Traditionally, the River Trent was often considered to be the boundary between north and south in England... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because UK geography is complicated by the fact that the UK is a country of countries, and while it is a single sovereign state, there is still a place called "England" which is distinct from "Scotland", culturally speaking. But this is not unique to the UK and England. It's possible to speak of northern vs. southern cultural distinctions in a country and separately in one of its subdivision. The Southern United States and South Florida can happily co-exist, even though Florida is part of the United States (and many people tend to only include North Florida in the Southern United States, just to confuse the situation even more...) --Jayron32 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still, the two articles both suggest that it is the south of England which is the more prosperous, and largely cover the same ground. Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because UK geography is complicated by the fact that the UK is a country of countries, and while it is a single sovereign state, there is still a place called "England" which is distinct from "Scotland", culturally speaking. But this is not unique to the UK and England. It's possible to speak of northern vs. southern cultural distinctions in a country and separately in one of its subdivision. The Southern United States and South Florida can happily co-exist, even though Florida is part of the United States (and many people tend to only include North Florida in the Southern United States, just to confuse the situation even more...) --Jayron32 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
July 19
Letter from Birmingham Jail
Per the article, MLK wrote the letter in 1963 while locked up for breaking a wide injunction against "parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing". He later got bailed out with $100,000 that supporters raised, equivalent to a heck of a lot more in today's dollars.
By today's standards that injunction sounds ridiculous on 1A grounds. My main question: Did the case ever go to trial? What happened? Today I'd like to imagine the city having to pay a big settlement for locking him up in the first place, but back then, who knows. I also wonder how long he was actually in jail, and what the charge was. If it was civil contempt of court, I didn't realize posting bail was possible, but I guess it makes sense. IANAL and not seeking legal advice. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting a bit longer passage from Why We Can't Wait, pp. 90–91 in the 2000 Signet Classic edition (ISBN 9780451527530):
One more factor helped to encourage us in the belief that our goals were coming within reach. We had demonstrated in defiance of a civil injunction. For this act of disobedience, we had been cited for contempt. In Alabama, if you are cited for criminal contempt, you serve five days and that is the end of it. If you are cited for civil contempt, however, you figuratively hold the jailhouse keys in the palm of your hand. At any time, if you are willing to recant, you can earn release. If you do not recant, you can be held for the rest of your natural life.
Most of the demonstrators had been cited for criminal contempt. About ten of us, however, all leaders of the movement, had been cited for civil contempt. When we were first placed under this charge, I am certain that the Birmingham authorities believed we would back down rather than face the threat of indefinite imprisonment. But by the time we appeared in court late in April to answer the charges, all of Birmingham knew that we would never recant, even if we had to rot away in their jails. The city thus faced the prospect of putting us into jail for life. Confronted with the certain knowledge that we would not give in, the city attorney undoubtedly realized that he would be sentencing us to a martyrdom which must eventually turn the full force of national public opinion against Birmingham.
Abruptly the tactics were reversed. The civil-contempt charge was changed to the less stringent criminal-contempt charge, under which we were swiftly convicted on April 26. In addition, the judge announced that he would delay sentence and give us about twenty days to file an appeal. At this point there was little doubt in our minds that Birmingham's bastions of segregation were weakening.
- I hope this is still fair use; it explains all, including how blindfolded Lady Justice can be used for oppression. --Lambiam 07:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, that mostly explains. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Citations for the legendary love story of Anarkali
On WP we do have this long standing article Anarkali which was probably sourced in most portions but without citing those sources. Over the years multiple edits have been made and it's bit tough to search back content for a single user (me) to identify the sources, though I have updated some of them some still remain.
For those who love historical fiction of love, task would be interesting enough. In this legendary love story from South Asian history, historical or not popular belief has been a lady named Anarkali in the life of an Emperor was also loved by his son.
I looking for help in citations needed in subsections of the section Prominent guesses about who the Anarkali was namely:
- 1. Jahangir ordered the body of the tomb to be wrought in gold.
- 2. Dara also mentions the existence of a tomb in the garden but does not give it a name.
- 3. According to Akbar Nama, Jahangir "became violently enamoured of the daughter of Zain Khan Koka. H.M. (Akbar) was displeased at the impropriety, but he saw that his heart was immoderately affected, he, of necessity, gave his consent
- 4. The translator of Akbar Nama, H. Beveridge, said Akbar objected to the marriage because the Prince was already married "to Zain Khan’s niece" (actually the daughter of paternal uncle of Zain Khan, and hence Zain Khan's cousin). Akbar objected to marrying near relations.
- 5. The accounts of the British travellers, and consequently the presumption of Eraly, is unlikely because Prince Daniyal's mother died in 1596, which does not match the dates inscribed on the sarcophagus.
- 6. According to other accounts, after Akbar's death, Salim (Jahangir) recalled Anarkali and they married. She was given a new name, Nur Jahan.
- 7. Nur Jehan, died in 1645, 16 years after Jahangir's death
- 8. Opinion of historian Ram Nath
- 9. The article Akbar does not give date/ years when Akbar was personally gone out for Deccan campaign, possible help for finding that
Thanks for the help.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I at least searched the article history, and there is basically zero history of sourcing to the sections you are looking for. The sources to the table are mostly as they are now, with one earlier row (sourced to Jahangir 1829 p. 26, still in bibliography) removed. There was also some pseudohistory posted then removed about Nur Jahan. (I was also about to tell you who the bulk of content was added by, but I just realized that it was you!)
- There's a lot of direct quotations unsourced, so that should be an easy Google search, right? Yeah, no. Real person doesn't say what article they read, plus two slightly different blogs at least one of which is for sure algorithmically generated and mixes up sources (it has repeated or incorrectly matched names and dates, for example). However, this old blog cites DAWN (1 May 2005) possibly for the whole thing, which is something, but it's not the source of any quotation. Finally I found Ram Nath's quote "reliably" sourced to Tribune India (8 April 2000). (Nath may also be cited for related content in Lal (2001) (jstor=4410400), but I didn't read the article). And I really need to do other stuff today, so that's where I'm stopping for now. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks @SamuelRiv for info and support. Over all it seems the additions previous to mine may be coming from tertiary sources, and I was trying to search in secondary RS. It did not cross my mind to make search the way you did. So it seems at least little more search work to find related RS and rewriting a little more.
- Warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why you numbered the points I do not know, but be aware that you can have automatic numbering by replacing '*' with '#'. —Tamfang (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Politicization of Supreme Courts
If you were to take a sample of the general Canadian population, I'd wager that virtually none of them could name a single Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, past or present. On the other hand, there are castaways on desert islands who nevertheless know the members of the US court because each appointment there is endlessly scrutinized by the media and - I think - because the appointments there are clearly done for political purposes. The questions I have are:
- If we take these as two extremes, how would the rest of the world break down? That's maybe unanswerable, but do most countries intimately know every single one of their SC Justices (or equivalent) and their political leanings?
- Even if we just stick with the US and Canada, has anyone examined why the two are so different? I mean, we have different political systems, so there's bound to be some differences, but I think we otherwise typically regard more or less equivalent government bodies in the same sort of way: the US has infamous Governors, we have infamous Premiers, etc. etc. Or, maybe I'm wrong altogether?
- Is there a relationship between how political the SC appointments of a country are versus how divided the populace is politically? Like, maybe it doesn't matter so much in Canada because our geographic differences overshadow the left-right continuum?
Matt Deres (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- These are big questions so I'll just do #3: Yes and No (in the U.S.). Starting with the current/recent docket, there are a few notable decisions way out of line with public opinion. Of course, as recently as 2020 (a 2-Trump-seated GOP-nominated majority bench) rulings were largely in sync with the public. Simultaneously, however, it has been known for years that judicial nominations have become more polarized, as have U.S. politics in general. (The latter article is a review -- there are tons of individual articles either saying by 2016 the USSC was irrevocably partisan or was the only true beacon of moderation or was even too elitist and uniform of ideology. There's no shortage of opinions.) This is not the first time the court has become politicized -- the common comparison is the New Deal court (look, I heard it in some news podcast, and I'm not reading another article for this answer but it probably gets the jist of the point across). The polarization in the U.S. comes from many things, but it is at least in part driven by party leaders (a million poli sci papers and secondaries on this -- it's well-known). One thing that's true though is that the American public still believes the Supreme Court should be independent of politics -- they just seem to disagree on what that looks like (and maybe part of that is in how their media and social bubble portrays how the the country "ought" to be versus how it "is"?).
- For #1/2, I'll say quickly, sourceless, that in theory the nine SC justices should have about as about as much power as the U.S. president. So an individual justice in theory has 1/9 the power, which is still a lot of power since the U.S. president is arguably many times more powerful/influential on the world stage than most other chief executives. If the USSC chose to wield original jurisdiction like a sledgehammer they may even supersede the domestic power of the other branches. But back to reality, the main reason the world cares about our Supreme Court is because its membership has been the central motivation of an enormous segment of the U.S. conservative movement for the last 40 years, and U.S. politics seems to be a global spectacle for many more reasons. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- As to question 1: In Germany, half of the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court are elected by the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the other half by the Bundesrat (representing the 16 Federal States). In each case, a two-thirds majority is required, so the major political parties have to find a consensus on the potential appointees. This results in much less polarization than in the USA, therefore to much less media attention. The politically interested part of the general population might know perhaps the name of the president of the court, but certainly not all the members. --Morinox (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two things that Germany (and apparently France and the UK) have over the U.S. in federal judicial appointments: mandatory retirement age, and (I don't know if this is in theory possible in Europe still, because we didn't think it was true in the U.S. until they did it) the other branches of U.S. government can simply not appoint/confirm judges for as long as they like, if nobody has full control. Those factors have played a major role in how the parties have strategized court appointments. But to compare the effectiveness and independence of the highest courts in Germany, France, and the U.S., there's a really interesting examination in Brouard and Honnige 2017 (no free link, but Wiley's in the Library). The main takeaway is that the USSC, despite having the appearance of being a big deal in the U.S., is in reality about as influential on the political sphere as the German or French S.C.. All such courts fluctuate in terms of influence, however, in reflection of the effectiveness of the other branches of government. Germany had the most complex inter-body interaction. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the UK, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a relatively new thing (2009), replacing the law lords as the highest court of appeal. The appointments to the court are non-political so far, although governments can find their judgments hard to cope with - see R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, referred to by one member of the current government as a "constitutional coup". The only political control on appointments to the court is that the Lord Chancellor has a right of veto on proposed appointments prepared by an independent selection commission, although they can only use that right for one suggested appointee. Another important difference to SCOTUS is that there is mandatory retirement age of 75 years (in common with all UK judges - recently increased from 70). Mikenorton (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not possible for a decision at any level of government to be "apolitical". The term "apolitical" only ever meant "agrees with my politics". Either the judges in question are expected to make decisions you agree with, or not. The Supreme Court has always been a political body, and anyone that tells you differently is just revealing what they believe to be the "correct" decisions for the court to make, and only that the current court doesn't decide in that direction. --Jayron32 11:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Jayron32 -- Maybe, but "political" in that sense doesn't necessarily mean "overtly partisan". Back in the 1950s through 1970s, even many of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions were decided unanimously (Brown v. Board of Education) or by a wide majority (Roe v. Wade), and even in later decades, justices didn't always follow the politics of presidents who appointed them. In 2022, there's now a solid 5-justice phalanx (with Roberts as an appendage) bent on forcing a very narrowly partisan agenda (not even supported by all Republican voters) onto the United States. AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're wrong about the current state of the court, I only take exception at the assertion that decisions that were made unanimously or with large majorities were apolitical. They are an organ of the government; by definition they are political. Whether you consider their actions to be political or not is only a reflection on how much their actions agree with your own politics. --Jayron32 18:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you're trying to use the word "political" to obscure the difference between the fact that there are losers and winners from just about every decision of every court, vs. the fact the U.S. Supreme Court is currently dominated by a cadre of self-conscious ideologues who are trying to impose on the United States a religious and partisan political agenda only supported by a definite minority of U.S. citizens, then I don't see what purpose that serves... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thing is, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make decisions based on popular opinion. They base their decisions on existing law and the Constitution. If “We, The People” don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, our remedy is to elect legislators who pass new laws (or, if necessary, to amend the Constitution). Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Words, including the words that are written down in laws, only have the meaning we give to them. Insofar as the court decides what the words mean, they will make their decisions based on their own understanding and background, exactly like everyone else does in every situation. If the words didn't require interpretation, the court wouldn't need to exist. --Jayron32 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thing is, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make decisions based on popular opinion. They base their decisions on existing law and the Constitution. If “We, The People” don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, our remedy is to elect legislators who pass new laws (or, if necessary, to amend the Constitution). Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you're trying to use the word "political" to obscure the difference between the fact that there are losers and winners from just about every decision of every court, vs. the fact the U.S. Supreme Court is currently dominated by a cadre of self-conscious ideologues who are trying to impose on the United States a religious and partisan political agenda only supported by a definite minority of U.S. citizens, then I don't see what purpose that serves... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're wrong about the current state of the court, I only take exception at the assertion that decisions that were made unanimously or with large majorities were apolitical. They are an organ of the government; by definition they are political. Whether you consider their actions to be political or not is only a reflection on how much their actions agree with your own politics. --Jayron32 18:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Jayron32 -- Maybe, but "political" in that sense doesn't necessarily mean "overtly partisan". Back in the 1950s through 1970s, even many of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions were decided unanimously (Brown v. Board of Education) or by a wide majority (Roe v. Wade), and even in later decades, justices didn't always follow the politics of presidents who appointed them. In 2022, there's now a solid 5-justice phalanx (with Roberts as an appendage) bent on forcing a very narrowly partisan agenda (not even supported by all Republican voters) onto the United States. AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone for the thoughts and links. Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do we really
regard more or less equivalent government bodies in the same sort of way
? Canadians claim to play football as they claim a Supreme Court. I grant yourinfamous Governors...infamous Premiers, etc. etc
and a long line of infamous ministers from our shared heritage, but can you match the infamy of Dred Scott? Marbury v. Madison was 1803, and by the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we had seen Plessy, Korematsu, Griswold, Brown, Loving, Roe and the start of "a half-century of disciplined, persistent, and prudent political, legal, and religious effort". Our "least dangerous branch" is—perhaps not enviably—the world's most powerful and dangerous, and has been playing prime-time for years. Do they even televise CFL? fiveby(zero) 14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
July 20
Who was Colonel Charles?
In 1820, Lord Thomas Cochrane, then in the employ of the Chilean Navy, allegedly sent a Lieutenant-Colonel Charles off to Saint Helena to offer Napoleon the throne of Chile. Some sources report this as fact, while our article quotes a source saying that Charles had died before the mission is said to have taken place. In any event, Napoleon was at death's door and wasn't going anywhere. So who was this Charles? Donald Serrell Thomas says that he had previously served under Sir Robert Wilson in the Egyptian campaign, but I have no other clues. Alansplodge (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the stories about getting Napoleon out of St. Helena turned out to be apocryphal. One of the more famous was that of French-born, Philadelphia banker Stephen Girard, who according to a single unverified article from the Baltimore American tried to organize an expedition to bring Napoleon to the U.S., but the story appeared many years after the events and no confirmation of the story has ever been found, making it likely apocryphal.[6]. There was also the mythically bizarre plot to send a submarine to get Napoleon off St. Helena: [7]. I can't find much information in reliable sources on any Cochrane-led plot, though the story is out there, no Lt. Col Charles shows up in what I can find, this account from 1939 seems to place Cochrane at the forefront of the apocryphal Philadelphia plot, for example. --Jayron32 18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is only one index entry in Cochrane in the Pacific (the quoted source) for a Charles, Lt Colonel James which may be wikidata:Q16302621 es:Jaime Charles (ingeniero). Escuela de Infantería de Marina del "Comandante Jaime Charles". Footnote in Miller, John (1829). Memoirs of General Miller. p. 227. Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, Loyal Lusitanian Legion in the peninsula 1808, aide to Sir Robert Wilson. fiveby(zero) 18:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Glover, Michael (1978) A very slippery fellow : the life of Sir Robert Wilson, 1777-1849, says that when Wilson was forming the Loyal Lusitanian Legion, "Wilson secured a Lieutenant James Charles, Royal Artillery, as his aide-de-camp, a post Charles was later to fill in Russia." Glover later notes the Charles joined Wilson in Russia in January 1813. Charles was thus present at the Battle of Lützen. Suggests that the comment above mine might be correct. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wilson was in Egypt 1801-2, and from Donald Thomas "Chochrane had despatched a confidential messenger, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles to a very different destination. Charles had served under Sir Robert Wilson in Egypt..." Thomas, Donald Serrell (1980). Cochrane: Britannia's last sea-king. p. 263. Thomas gave the story to Cornwell for Sharpe's Devil[8]. Brian Vale looks more trustworthy but all i can see is a google snippet view. fiveby(zero) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Was Lady Chochrane trying to hide the true identity of the messenger? Maybe she confused James with his brother Claudius, who had arrived in Chile...Or maybe she was referring to an earlier message." Ocampo, Emilio (2009). The emperor's last campaign. p. 379. Lady Cochrane's account is in Tute, Warren (1965). Chochrane. p. 176.. fiveby(zero) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wilson was in Egypt 1801-2, and from Donald Thomas "Chochrane had despatched a confidential messenger, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles to a very different destination. Charles had served under Sir Robert Wilson in Egypt..." Thomas, Donald Serrell (1980). Cochrane: Britannia's last sea-king. p. 263. Thomas gave the story to Cornwell for Sharpe's Devil[8]. Brian Vale looks more trustworthy but all i can see is a google snippet view. fiveby(zero) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Glover, Michael (1978) A very slippery fellow : the life of Sir Robert Wilson, 1777-1849, says that when Wilson was forming the Loyal Lusitanian Legion, "Wilson secured a Lieutenant James Charles, Royal Artillery, as his aide-de-camp, a post Charles was later to fill in Russia." Glover later notes the Charles joined Wilson in Russia in January 1813. Charles was thus present at the Battle of Lützen. Suggests that the comment above mine might be correct. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, one and all. I have been reading Thomas's book on Cochrane, which led me to the "clarification needed" template in our article. Using his full name provided above, I found The name’s James, Charles James: a Napoleonic-era enigma, which says that James was appointed "French Secretary" to the Master of the Ordnance, which probably involved spying. According to that article, he died in England in early 1821, which makes Lady Cochrane's story even less plausible, but contradicts Brian Vale's account that he was already dead in 1820. Alansplodge (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Intense months-long battles along the lines of Verdun or Stalingrad?
Ban evasion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Which battles were intense, months-long, and covered a small amount of territory similar to the 1916 Battle of Verdun and the 1942 Battle of Stalingrad (which was actually referred to as the Red Verdun during World War II)? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
|
July 21
Proxy wars that directly involved a superpower or semi-superpower?
Ban evasion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Which proxy wars directly involved a superpower or at least a semi-superpower? I can think of:
Which other similar cases like the ones above were there? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
|
innovation to prevent wasteful spills
I saw this on Inside Edition. A young girl named Adaline Hamlin designed a lunch tray for special needs students. Her project began as a class assignment, at her high school. For less than $5 in materials, she and her school's 3D printing club produced a prototype. Does the project have a name? (Anyway, she won a 'STEM for All Award' at a state competition, (in Tennessee,) and has made the printing plans available at no cost, for any special needs students who want to prevent wasteful spills.)2603:7000:8100:F444:412:4DDE:E611:E730 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's called "Stop the Slide: A Lunch Tray for Students with Disabilities". [9] [10] Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you.2603:7000:8100:F444:B432:8A56:87DD:E1B4 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
July 22
New term for the US Supreme Court
In the new (upcoming) term for the US Supreme Court, are there any "affirmative action" cases on the docket? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Check out the list of upcoming cases at List of pending United States Supreme Court cases RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Pier Luigi Bersani and the Légion d'honneur
Pier Luigi Bersani is reported as a recipient of the Legion of Honour in the "Honours" section of the omonimous article, by way of a category in the same article and at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name (B). While I find this believable, the apparent lack of easily identifiable sources and of a mention of this honour in the italian and french wikipedia articles seems suspect. Some diffs: adding the section (2010) [11]; adding to the list from category (2007) [12]; adding the category to the article (2006) [13]. My understanding is that the full list of recipients is quite large, but still manageable and public. 109.119.237.35 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the original reference to him receiving it was when the article was created by NoSoftwarePatents in 2005. Complete bust on google searches. Luckily no mainstream media outlet seems to have repeated the Wikipedia article info (which is mirrored on other wikis) which would have been another possible WP:CITOGENESIS. Great catch -- thanks for letting us know. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I actually found an older reference to this [14] (in italian). It doesn't look reliable at all, it has a paywall and it's from 1999 (good luck at finding the full article). Checking a full official french list of recipients (if available) seems still the most solid way to go, but the lack of other sources is quite screaming. 109.119.237.35 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately none of the archives in the WP Library have it:Staffetta Quotidiana, but I don't think there's much reason to think it's not an RS for the purpose of a fact as easily verifiable as a prestigious national award should be (you literally just email the correct office in the French government and ask to confirm (usually it helps to say you're from the media)). But I can't find any mention of it in the newspapers that I can search, of which there are at least a few from France and Italy available. So I was wary, until I finally came across these dead links: "Bersani promuove il governo su Fincantieri, ma lo boccia su Tim". Huffington Post (in Italian). 2017-08-03. Archived from the original on 2017-08-08, and the cache-accessible-only (direct links to caches are blocked on WP) "Fincantieri,Bersani: Renzi ingeneroso, Governo si muove bene". Yahoo! Notizie (in Italian). 2017-08-03 – via Cache. Both use the same quote from Bersani speaking at Radio Radicale:
"Da uno come me che ha ricevuto la legion d'onore - ha detto più in generale l'ex segretario del Pd- non so se Macron abbia fatto un gran servizio alla Francia. La Francia si è mangiata la parola: non credo che con Francois Mitterand o Jacques Chirac sarebbe potuta accadere una cosa del genere su una vicenda analoga".
That's of course not two sources, but secondary references to a single primary source. And regardless of a politician's ability to seamlessly lie, a lie about what is again an easily-verified fact from a public figure seems just silly (unless you're a pathological liar). So that's two RSes, which is more than sufficient for this kind of thing. I'll be damned. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[From someone like me who received the legion of honor - said the former secretary of the Democratic Party more generally - I don't know if Macron did a great service to France. Francois Mitterand or Jacques Chirac could have happened such a thing on a similar story.] [punctuation omission in source].
- A few more words of the same news item are found here:
29/10/1999 | Leggi e Atti Amministrativi
LEGION D'ONORE AL MINISTRO BERSANI
Su proposta del ministro dell'Industria francese, Christian Pierret,il presidente Chirac ha conferito a Pierluigi Bersani l'onorificenza di "Commandeur de la Lègion d'honneur" in riconoscimento del contributo dato dal ministro italiano alle buone relazioni econo...
- --Lambiam 14:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately none of the archives in the WP Library have it:Staffetta Quotidiana, but I don't think there's much reason to think it's not an RS for the purpose of a fact as easily verifiable as a prestigious national award should be (you literally just email the correct office in the French government and ask to confirm (usually it helps to say you're from the media)). But I can't find any mention of it in the newspapers that I can search, of which there are at least a few from France and Italy available. So I was wary, until I finally came across these dead links: "Bersani promuove il governo su Fincantieri, ma lo boccia su Tim". Huffington Post (in Italian). 2017-08-03. Archived from the original on 2017-08-08, and the cache-accessible-only (direct links to caches are blocked on WP) "Fincantieri,Bersani: Renzi ingeneroso, Governo si muove bene". Yahoo! Notizie (in Italian). 2017-08-03 – via Cache. Both use the same quote from Bersani speaking at Radio Radicale:
- I actually found an older reference to this [14] (in italian). It doesn't look reliable at all, it has a paywall and it's from 1999 (good luck at finding the full article). Checking a full official french list of recipients (if available) seems still the most solid way to go, but the lack of other sources is quite screaming. 109.119.237.35 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
July 23
Genealogy question - First cousins or second cousins?
In the first two paragraphs of this article I created I describe Fry's genealogy, as I understand it from the sources. His father was Thomas Cousins Fry and his mother was Charlotte Fry, a cousin of Thomas. Were they first cousins or second cousins? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- If they had the same parents, they were siblings. If the same grand-parents, cousins. If the same great-grandparents, second cousins, etc. In this case, from what you wrote it looks like their parents were siblings, e.g. that they shared grand-parents, so they were first cousins. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did they have a cousin born in Paris... a French Fry? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
emigrated or immigrated?
In the first paragraph of Henry Clay Fry's biography I use emigrated and immigrated. Am I using them correctly? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you emigrate from and you immigrate to. Matt Deres (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- And you migrate from one place to another. All three of these terms have Latin roots. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- An easy way to remember:
- immigrate = in
- emigrate = exit
- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "in" and "ex" are in fact the prefixes we're working with here; the n becomes an m when there's an m following and the x is removed when attached to an m. Or a b d g i l n r or v. Temerarius (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
"White" as a dirty color
Look at the Colors table in:
[18] (go to the Colors table)
The "white" color in the table isn't white at all; white is a nice, clean color; the "white" in the table is more beige. Does anyone know a more precise name for this color term?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Id probably call that beige. Cheers ❖ hugarheimur 19:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a bit light for beige. Maybe cream ? --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't that the influence of the colour shemes of Interior design? Beige in our X11 name chart also looked to me very near of the sample after I managed placing a zoom over it. --Askedonty (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a bit light for beige. Maybe cream ? --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I seem to remember that the X11 color names were based on some guy looking at crayons once and matching them by eye. Yes, here's the relevent archived question. I enjoyed that one. Card Zero (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- My first serious drawing out off the kindergarden was with crayons a reproduction of an Amerindian Chief, and I couldn't understand why the skin color made with poor crayons did not match that of the original. I had to wait for the UV crisis of 2005 and see people with their skin turning green, then dark Puce to understand for real that the rendering by light on earth may be subject to very specific conditions. --Askedonty (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I seem to remember that the X11 color names were based on some guy looking at crayons once and matching them by eye. Yes, here's the relevent archived question. I enjoyed that one. Card Zero (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- In general it's called an "off-white". It could be one of several, a light beige, cream, ivory, sandy white, etc. See shades of white for more possibilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_white#Floral_white or ivoryModocc (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I sense a kluge. Note that these are shiny moon-banana-objects. This is the kind of compromise an artist might be forced into when a white object needs to have a shiny highlight on it. It might still be supposed to be white. I think the lighting in this Mario game is fairly even, without much contrast between the lit sides of objects and the shaded sides, which makes the effect worse. Or it might just be these objects which are like that in the game. (Do they glow?) Card Zero (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Does [the surrey with the fringe on top] really have a team of snow-white horses?"
- "One's like snow, the other's more like milk."
- --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is anyone else uncomfortable with how this question is phrased, or even why it is being asked at all? 'White is a nice, clean colour' - implying perhaps that colours other than white are less nice, and less clean? If there's a serious question here, I'm sure it would be possible to phrase it in a clearer manner. Girth Summit (blether) 23:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here a similar, skightly lighter colour is called "cornsilk". --Lambiam 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- That, again, is derived from the X11 color names, and presumably therefore from John C. Thomas eyeballing crayons in 1989, even though Crayola cornsilk is much more yellow. Card Zero (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
July 24
Which countries like pork meat the most?
It seems everywhere outside lamb, people tend to like steak or chicken. Not to known down on races, but there seems to be a correlation that Whites like steak meat the most, while Africans like chicken meat the most. So are there any countries in the world that seem to like pork meat the most? (At least over steak and chicken.). Despite that, we have 2 major religions that condemn eating pork, so. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC).