Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 17

The London Residence of the Painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder

The Staircase of the London Residence of the Painter

The painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder, a Dutchman, lived in London from 1823 to 1831. It has been suggested that his painting The Staircase of the London Residence of the Painter represents Goderich offering his resignation to the King, represented by a Spaniel. What I would like to know is where was the London residence of the painter and does it still stand, and did Wonder have a dog while he lived there? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Supposedly the address is on the tag attached to the rabbit's foot. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

According to this article (14th item down), the message on the hare's foot includes the word "Sudbourne" where in 1828, there was a shooting accident at a hunting party for Tory politicians, resulting in Henry Frederick Cooke and two boys being injured (represented by the hare and the two small partridges); part of an elabotrate allegory. The London address has eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to OP see here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

French election

[1] Does that mean what it looks like, that Marine Le Pen and her party are about to completely pwn France? Is that like Trump winning all 50 US states in the US election? Is there a main issue that caused this sudden takeover? I don't understand at all how French politics work, but I see from the relevant WP articles that Le Pen has been trying to soften her party's formerly far right image, to now be more centre-right. Is that legit, or posturing? Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what that Tweet is referring to, but according to the article 2024_French_legislative_election the election will be held on June 30 and July 7. RudolfRed (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The RN won 30 out of 81 French seats in the European Elections. The national elections later this month are done using a completely different system which elects one person from each constituency, and has a second round of voting if no candidta ehas 50% at the first vote. That often means that the RN gets the most votes the first time, then at the second vote the other parties all side with the runner up to prevent the RN candidate being elected. They should do well - but will probably not form the next government 2A00:23C5:2228:B301:29CE:A868:7FA4:ECA7 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(EC)The tweet is based on the recently completed 2024 European Parliament Elections. That election was run in a single round with a large number of national lists (30+) in competition, and results were strictly proportional. The Rassemblement National (as the party now calls itself) won a plurality in most regions, including in places where it had not done well historically - hence the map. The upcoming legislative election will be held in two rounds, in small electoral districts, with three or four large blocks in competition; in those elections, a plurality is not enough to win. So, you can't simply extrapolate results from one election onto the other. In past legislative or presidential elections, the RN (or its predecessors) tended to do well in the first round, and then face a coalition of all of their opponents in the second round, because they are still considered to be "beyond the pale", which resulted in fewer seats won in Parliament than would have occurred with a "normal" party. The question is whether this dynamic will play again in a few weeks. No one really knows at this point. Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Quatermain and Marmion

According to our article The Ingoldsby Legends, Allan Quatermain quotes part of Scott's Marmion in King Solomon's Mines, but mistakenly says it is from Ingoldsby. Which bit of Marmion was it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The quote comes in chapter 14 of KSM:

The stubborn spearmen still made good
The dark impenetrable wood,
Each stepping where his comrade stood
The instant that he fell.

"as I think the Ingoldsby Legends beautifully puts it." Robert Louis Stevenson protested against the misattribution, but Haggard blamed Quatermain's poor literary education rather than his own. [2] All the same, I see that in my copy of KSM the attribution reads "as someone or other beautifully says", so the criticism must have stung. In Marmion you can find the lines in Canto 6, stanza 34, though Scott has "their dark impenetrable wood". --Antiquary (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

With a little searching of the Project Gutenberg version, I think it's this passage from Chapter 14:

As for the fight that followed, who can describe it? Again and again the multitudes surged against our momentarily lessening circle, and again and again we beat them back.

“The stubborn spearmen still made good The dark impenetrable wood, Each stepping where his comrade stood The instant that he fell,”

as someone or other beautifully says.

That's from Marmion, but not attributed to Ingoldsby at all. At the start of the story, Quartermain the narrator says "I am not a literary man, though very devoted to the Old Testament and also to the Ingoldsby Legends.” There's also an actual quote from Ingoldsby at the start of chapter 6. Perhaps we should mention one of those things in our article instead (if any of this is really wiki-notable, which I doubt). Chuntuk (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. The Oxford World's Classics edition Antiquary links to is based on Cassell's first, 1885, edition. The Gutenberg text to which Chuntuk links is a 1907 edition. So my inevitable next question is "When did Haggard gloss over Quatermain's error?" DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not yet fixed in this 1901 edition. Chuntuk (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly conclusive, but of the many editions listed at Library Hub Discover the only pre-1907 one described as "Revised" is the 1905 Cassell one. --Antiquary (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But, as I feared, that proves nothing. The Oxford World Classics edition tells us that after the first edition "Haggard subsequently made minor revisions to correct errors in early reprints and then added further revisions for the Revised New Illustrated Edition in 1905." --Antiquary (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

June 19

What proportion of people in the world have less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities?

A person, his/her parents, his/her grandparents, his/her great-grandparents, his/her great-great-grandparents, his/her great-great-great-grandparents, and his/her great-great-great-great-grandparents, with 7 consanguinities, adding up to 2^7-1 = 127 different individuals, a person usually has 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities, but some person has less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities (this is because consanguine marriage), what proportion of people in the world have less than 127 persons within the 7 consanguinities? Also, what is the minimum number of persons within the 7 consanguinities such that there is a known person (may be in history) to have? 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an article in the German WP, de:Ahnenschwund, which traces geneaologies of selected royalties for >7 generations. Estimating any average may be impossible, as such documentation is only available for a few notable individuals. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

OMG, that's so not true. We have nearly all the family trees of everybody on Iceland going back to 874. See deCODE genetics. Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Iceland is, compared to continental Europe, a total exception to mobility. Numerous wars and migratory shifts have resulted in the loss of documentation on the European mainland. There is no point in extrapolating from a sample of 1 which is not representative. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. People choose mates the same way, mobility up to about 1850 was low worldwide, and all OP wants is an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• UK:
• Celtic population
• Roman legions in England
• Viking incursions, South and East
• Anglo-Saxon settlement in England
• Viking era under Cnut the Great
• Norman Conquest
• Great Fire of London
• Emmigration to US and other colonies
• Blitz Krieg
• Immigration from (previous) colonies
• Immigration of EU labour forces

• Iceland
• Population = Natfari and 2 slaves in the 9th century
• Settlement by Old Norse and Gaelic groups, 874 AD
• No wars
• No conquests

• That Icelanders are the same species is a profoundly irrelevant and idiotic comment. That mobility (on the continent) was low until 1850 is total rubbish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's you who don't get it. Everyone alive today who is of European heritage is descended from everybody alive in Europe in the year 800. Why? That was 48 or so generations ago given a 25 year generation time, meaning that you theoretically have 281,474,976,710,656 ancestors from the year 800. Or, if you assume 3 generations per 100 years, then 68,719,476,736 ancestors from the year 800. This makes the difference between Iceland and all of Europe look like a rounding error. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are some flaws in your assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In the more densely populated parts of Europe, there's a village every 2 km. Even centuries ago, people could easily marry someone from three villages away. Back in the 17th–18th century, your ancestors 6 generations back could come from a 5000 km² area (assuming no mass migrations, which did happen), housing around 200,000 people, more than the entire population of Iceland back then. (Rough numbers.)

You cannot assume Iceland is representative for Europe. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can, they are the same species, and mate the same way. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that marriage customs in Iceland are identical to those throughout the rest of Europe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Then people in Iceland must conciously avoid mating somebody with a common great-great-great-grandparent. I don't know Icelanders that well, but here on the continent most people don't know who their great-great-grandparents were, even when it can be looked up in the archives. Else, random chance makes cosanguine marriages within 6 generations more likely on Iceland, simply due to the smaller pool to draw mates from. And if Icelanders conciously avoid cosanguine marriages within 6 generations, they may be less common than on the continent. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there were very explicit rules shared by everyone in the Catholic world and probably in all Christendom. You went to the priest, they looked in the church register and worked out the consanguinity using a mathematical method. If it violated the rule (mentioned in the article Libellus responsionum), you had to apply to the Pope in Rome for a dispensation, which he would use to extract a lot of money from the nobility, who were more likely to engage in close marriages. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who has studied their own family tree will probably know the answer for themselves, but even if that information could be compiled across all trees somehow, there's no assurance it would represent a reliable average. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For Cleopatra VII I find 24 individuals, assuming that Cleopatra I had four different grandparents. In particular, Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III, themselves uncle and niece, where great-grandparents of Cleopatra VII along three different lines and great-great-grandparents of hers along two more lines. There may be Egyptian royals where you find an even lower number. Assuming the family trees are correct; amongst nobility extramarital sex happened sometimes on purpose to prevent inbreeding. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Then there's King Tut, whose parents were brother and sister. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

From a distant sociological point of view there is nothing like - exists akin without a fully homogeneously structured population. Except for one given durable period in insolated Iceland, and outrageously punctual, this or that other capital city blessed with the kind of magical aura making their burghers view themselves shiningly aristocratic. It's well known that otherwise, they'd finished dissolving in cretinism. --Askedonty (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of King Tut? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Charles II of Spain (see Avunculate marriage#Medieval European royals, there are only 24 different persons within the 5 consanguinities of Charles II of Spain)? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Alfonso XII of Spain? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Ferdinand I of Austria? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Cleopatra VII (see Pedigree collapse)? Where for a “normal” person the answer is 127. 36.233.246.191 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

King Tut: Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt family tree is incomplete and some lines are uncertain, but other dan his parents, who were siblings, the next pair of ancestors who were related happened 8 generations before. I cannot conclude that the number as asked in the question is fewer than 63.

Charles II of Spain: 49. Going more generations back, there are more consanguinities to be found.

Cleopatra VII I already mentioned above: 24.

PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

June 23

"...year of his age"

The grave of Pelham Humfrey states: "Here lieth interred the body of Mr. Pelham Humphrey, who died the fourteenth of July, Anno Dom. 1674, and in the twenty-seventh year of his age". Does this mean age 27, as stated in the article, or rather age 26? Can we be sure about the right interpretation of 17th century English? --KnightMove (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, our article at Mary Jones and her Bible seems to document a case, in 1800, where " in the 16th year of my age" must have meant "in the year leading up to my 16th birthday", i.e. at the age of 15. I don't know how consistent historical usage would have been about this either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks - and there are sufficient sources to confirm this viewpoint. Example. --KnightMove (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a translation of the Latin phrase "(Anno) Aetatis Suae", and may not have ever been very natural in English... AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, since we only know the year of his birth, it's not possible to say whether he was 26 or 27 when he died. This is a clever way of putting it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

[slinks into dunce corner and hangs head in shame] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think so anymore because the phrase is also used for people with completely known birth-and-death dates. Another example to the one I have linked above (Benjamin Franklin), from the same period as Humfrey: "... Mr. Philip Henry, minister of the gospel near Whitchurch in Shropshire, - Who died June 24, 1696, in the sixty fifth year of his age..." (source) - Henry was 64 years old.

Although we don't know Pelham Humfrey's date of birth anymore, and it probably wasn't known at the time, they seem to have assumed he was 26 years old when he died, and this is the best information we have. That's why several sources give the time of his birth as 1647/48 (never 1646/47), consistently interpreting his gravestone in this way. --KnightMove (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In Latin it would imply 26.  --Lambiam 07:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously 26. In your first year, you're age 0; in your second year you're age 1; in your 27th year you're age 26. Nyttend (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Standard fencepost error. Same thing that confuses some people about the century divides. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. When you are in your first year of your age, you have not yet reached your first birthday. Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we handle human age the same way as we count floors on buildings. In the USA we start at one and anywhere else we start at zero. This would simplify any emergent confusion. For selected celebrities from Muslimic areas we should also use the lunar calendar to avoid any accusations of cultural appropriation. In the case of scientists engaged in cosmology or astronomy the inverse square rule is mandatory, modified by the curvature of space-time. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Better still, we should handle days, months and years the same way we do hours, minutes and seconds. Today is 2023:05:25. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(closing small tag)AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

According to traditional East Asian age reckoning, you were 1 year old when you were born, and this number was added to by 1 on each subsequent Chinese New Year (no relevance to Mr. Pelham Humphrey, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

June 25

State of Michigan - Upper Peninsula

I am curious: why is the Upper Peninsula a part of the state of Michigan, and not a part of the state of Wisconsin? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the Michigan article, when it became a state it was granted the U.P. in trade for the settlement of a boundary dispute with Ohio, as Ohio had won that dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wisconsin wasn't granted statehood until over a decade later. At that point it would require a literal act of Congress and consent of both Wisconsin and Michigan to transfer the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

See Toledo War for the boundary dispute. Nyttend (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WTO Compliance Proceedings

Are parties allowed to raise new issues during WTO Compliance Proceedings? Grotesquetruth (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Where is Papa Doc?

According to our article François Duvalier "On 8 February 1986, when the Duvalier regime fell, a crowd attacked Duvalier's mausoleum, throwing boulders at it, chipping off pieces from it, and breaking open the crypt. Duvalier's coffin was not inside, however. A prevailing rumor in the capital, according to The New York Times, was that his son had removed his remains upon fleeing to the United States in an Air Force transport plane the day before." Has his body ever turned up? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in storage next to the Ark of the Covenant Chuntuk (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26

Does anyone know anything about this Indian (Buddhist?) story?

I once read an Indian story that went like this: "A courtesan was in love with a sadhu who wasn't interested and refused to even go visit her. Sometimes later she provoked the king's anger so he ordered that her ears, nose, hands and feet be cut and that she be abandoned at a cremation ground. Only at that point did the sadhu go visit her to teach her about the doctrine etc." I think the story is Buddhist but I'm not sure. Does anyone know anything about such a story, specifically the name of the courtsan, and the source? 178.51.74.75 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(As a Buddhist) I have never come across this. It doesn't sound Buddhist, and sadhus are Hindu. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Three UK train crashes on one Sunday

My father was just telling me that he recalls a Sunday in the period 1963-1967, when there were three train crashes in the UK, on one day.

When was it and where were they? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't see anything at either List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom or List of accidents on British Rail. The latter does shew two crashes on 1 August 1963, but as well as being, like Mr Spiggott's legs, one too few, it was a Thursday not a Sunday. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, one of those two crashes involved two trains while the other incident only involved one, so on 1 August 1963 you could say that three trains crashed. It's possible (if unlikely) that this is how it got framed on some headlines to sound more sensational. Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

June 27

East Asian art

Why did the art of east Asia never have a "renaissance" and moved to a high degree of realism like European art did? I would think isolationism and a conformist culture would be an explanation, but during the Edo period of Japan, they did have some foreign influences still, like fabric patterns were adopted by the Japanese that were Indian and European in origin and brought to the country by the Dutch. It seems odd the influence would stop short of painting and drawing though. -- THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 04:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on Japonisme. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

See also the Hockney-Falco thesis, which holds that the realism in Western Rennaissance art was due to the development of optical instruments. The jury has yet to reach a verdict on that one. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, one particular focus of Chinese painting was broad panoramic landscapes, often much wider than they were high, and it's doubtful whether an imposed mathematical perspective of viewing the whole scene from strictly one single geometric point would have been artistically beneficial in that case. As William H. McNeill said, "Chinese painters had learned also to indicate space as a unified and unifying whole, but not by means of linear perspective... Chinese landscapes were projected instead from a shifting aerial point of vision" -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I can't remember the artist or title, but there's a probably European Renaissance painting of human figures against a background of lines of classical pillars (colonnades) receding into the distance, and while use of perspective did add a certain kind of realism to the scene, it also seemed to flashily call attention to itself, so that viewers were more preoccupied with the geometry than with what the painting was actually supposed to be about (or at least I was). Perspective is a powerful technique in the service of art, but it doesn't follow that an artwork with perspective is automatically better than a comparable one without... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You may refer to Raphael's School of Athens. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not flashy enough. The one I had in mind had a line of Parthenon-like columns starting in the left foreground and receding toward the center distance, and another line starting in the right foreground and also receding toward the center distance. AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it was a renaissance of something (perceived) to have happened before. Renaissance artists took things further, but they were deliberately grounding themselves in what have become known as "the classics" (i.e. ancient Greece and Rome). The Greeks did not use linear perspective in the way that Brunelleschi and others did, but they did know enough about it to use it for effect and they were generally proponents of the concept of "balance". East Asian art has its own concepts of balance and its own classics that it has to push against and be measured against. Matt Deres (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, while Japanese artists would have been technically able to realize "a high degree of realism", this was not considered artistically valuable and therefore not worth aiming at. Consider that the high degree of realism of the wax figures at Madame Tussauds is also not artistically appreciated; the art world prefers unrealistically white marble or dark bronze.  --Lambiam 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Chinese painters could do realism, and had their own perspective system that suited long scrolls - Along the River During the Qingming Festival is a famous, much-copied version. They were also very interested in reviving "classic" styles, but this most often meant the older versions of the scholar-artist or "literati" tradition, supposedly practiced by amateur scholars, where realism was mostly associated with "court painting" by professional but not very highly-educated artists (often hereditary). This also affected Japanese painting. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

National Rally–The Republicans alliance crisis

There is something I'm missing in regards to National Rally–The Republicans alliance crisis. What I do understand: Éric Ciotti, the president of The Republicans (LR), attempted to establish an electoral alliance with National Rally for the 2024 French legislative election. Most of the leadership of LR objected to this and voted to remove Ciotti from the presidency of the party and also from membership in the party. Ciotti sued and got a court ruling that he was still the president of LR.

However, the article does not clearly explain why the court found in favor of Ciotti, probably due to translation problems. It says: "The two successive exclusions of Ciotti, by the political bureau on 12 June then by the same body and the national council on 14 June, are considered to have no legal value by the main party concerned. Both were subsequently challenged in court in summary proceedings and suspended by the courts, which ruled on the fact that the lower court must be seized “within eight days” by “the most diligent party”, failing which “the suspension measure ordered will lapse”." What does this mean with the lower court being "seized" by "the most diligent party"? Is this supposed to mean that in eight days (after when?), LR would be allowed to remove Ciotti again? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The court decision is only a temporary one which allows Ciotti to continue as president of Les Républicains until the underlying issues are decided upon. The issue is whether the party members who voted to exclude him did so in conformity with party rules (normally it would be the party president who calls for an extraordinary bureau meeting such as the one that voted to exclude Ciotti, but obviously, that is not what happened). The anti-Ciotti faction's argument is that an alternative way of calling such a meeting is if a quarter of the members of the national executive request it, which is how they proceeded before voting Ciotti's exclusion. [3] Ciotti may have won the initial judicial battle, but he is clearly in a minority position within his party, and most members have refused to follow him in an alliance with the Rassemblement National. Xuxl (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

June 28

Talos period

I am proofing a presentation that makes reference to Talos. It doesn't give any form of time period. This is for a general audience, not historians. What time period should be used? I don't like any ideas I've had such as: "Around 300 BC..." is boring. "In the third century BC..." is confusing. "In Hellenistic Greece..." only makes sense if you have heard of "Hellenistic" before. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is this "Talos period" you speak of? AFAIK, there is no period associated with the mythological Talos you've linked to. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You can say, "In 2024, I prepared a presentation that makes reference to Talos." If you want us to tie spme statement to a time period, you need to indicate what the statement is. The earliest known references to the myth, by Simonides of Ceos, date from the Lyric Age of Greece – which unfortunately will only make sense to people who have heard of "the Lyric Age of Greece" before. But I guess this is true for all terms, from Bronze Age to Hellenistic Greece to Anthropocene.  --Lambiam 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reference, I asked on Reddit as well. The answer on Reddit was simple: "Use Circa 300BCE because most people will understand that." You can see the answers here are baseically "We are going to be as pedantic as possible and refuse to provide any answer that might be considered useful." 75.136.148.8 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I would have answered the 300BCE stuff as well but just did not consider that was a good idea. Some will like their coffee sweet and other won't, and we're taking care of your welfare too. You will not shine the same in your presentation depending on the pot you're taking your sugar from. --Askedonty (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Copping an attitude is not likely to improve your chances of getting what you're after. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd say "Use circa 300BC because more people will understand that (unless your intended audience are all college-educated Americans under say 35, or academics)." Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You told us that "Around 300 BC" is boring. Indeed, "Circa 300BCE" is much more exciting! But what does this period refer to? "Circa 300BCE, Talos toured thrice a day around Crete?".  --Lambiam 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Look at the article (which boringly uses BC). Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)