Welcome to the humanities reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

August 5Edit

Passing a bill in the U.S. CongressEdit

Two questions. Thanks in advance. (Question 1) For a bill to "pass" in the U.S. House of Representatives, the bill needs _____ votes. (What number? Or what percent?) (Question 2) For a bill to "pass" in the U.S. Senate, the bill needs _____ votes. (What number? Or what percent?) Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Simple majority in both cases.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I sort of figured. But, it's not a set number ... like, say, 51 ... correct? If all 100 senators show up and vote, the bill needs 51 votes to pass. Let's say that -- for whatever reason -- only 80 senators are present. Then, they need "only" 41 votes to pass ... ? Is that the idea? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, subject to the requirement for a quorum. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For bills subject to the current US Senate rules on the filibuster, 60 votes are required to move the bill to an up or down floor vote. The Senate rules are in neither law nor the Constitution and are subject to change. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Also keep in mind the tiebreaking power of the Vice President, who serves as presiding officer of the Senate and has the power to cast tiebreaking votes, whether the initial count is 50-50, 45-45, or whatever. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The House of Representatives normally has 435 voting members. One member got killed in car car crash earlier today, so it is 434 at the moment. House members may miss votes due to illness, weddings or funerals. The bottom line is that it is a 50% plus one vote of members present and voting. Thsre is no filibuster in the House of Representatives. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Cullen, the nominal numbers are 50% +1 votes among the members present to vote at that moment. That number varies depending on the number in the room. In the Senate, for many votes, this is 60% +1 votes, and that is because of a concept known as the filibuster, since while it takes 50% +1 votes to pass a bill, it takes 60% +1 votes to end debate on a bill, so if you can't get 60% +1 to vote to end debate, you can't ever get to the actual vote. In practice, many votes are done by unanimous consent, in which the chair proposes to pass a motion by consent, and if no one calls for the vote, the motion passes. But for formal votes, it is always 50% +1 to pass (and 60% + 1 in the Senate to break the filibuster). Since, on any given day, not all members may be present (due to illness, death, not feeling like showing up, etc. etc.) the actual number will vary. --Jayron 32 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathematical nitpick: a majority is 50% + ½, not 50% + 1. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

How many Congressmen are you aware of who are cut in half? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If there are 435 voting members, 50% is 217½, so 50% + ½ = 218. This constitutes a majority. I think Congress members, bisected or not, cannot cast half votes, so under a 50% + 1 rule only 219 or more would be needed for passage. --Lambiam 11:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The basic question really is how the government defines it. As noted here,[2] the government doesn't explicitly discuss percentages, it simply states what a majority is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you find the explanation confusing, then replace the "50% +1" with "the next highest whole number of humans strictly greater than 50%" and the "60% +1" with "the next highest whole number of humans strictly greater than 60%" and it should fix your confusion. --Jayron 32 15:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So, the legislators have to be physically present in the room? They can't email or telephone or fax or zoom or send a written message or whatever? They must physically show up? There's no alternatives at all ... for, say, a Senator in bed in the hospital (who still wants to vote)? Or some such? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally yes. Only very recent (since 2020) have they allowed committee meetings and testimony via zoom meeting; for actual honest to God votes, you have to actually honest to God be in the room to vote. No remote voting, no voting by proxy. There was a TEMPORARY measure, in the House of Representatives only, that allowed proxy voting during the pandemic, but AFAIK, they are back to normal operations. See [3] --Jayron 32 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I could be wrong about that being rescinded. The most recent report was that the measure was extended to February 2022, I can't see if it was left to expire, or if it is still in effect. This says the most recent extension was to expire on February 13, 2022. No idea if that took place. I also don't believe the Senate every passed a similar rule; I think they still require in-person voting. --Jayron 32 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This says it was extended to March 30, 2022. Still looking to see if it was extended again. --Jayron 32 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This says the most recent extension was set to expire on June 28, 2022, and it was expected to expire for good at that point. Still looking. --Jayron 32 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Make that August 12. So it is still allowed, but every extension has been more and more controversial. We'll see if it makes it past that point. --Jayron 32 18:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Another related thought: the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Does or does not that law apply to Congress and/or the federal government? I imagine, "yes". Can't a "disabled" senator or representative ask for "reasonable accommodations"? For example, "I am sick/disabled and confined to my hospital bed ... it is a reasonable accommodation to let me vote by phone, email, zoom, etc." ... no? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We're playing too much of the "what-if" game. The normal rules for both Houses of Congress are that one must be present bodily, in the chamber, in order to vote. The House of Representatives (but NOT the Senate) instituted a temporary rule to allow remote voting and committee meetings in light of the COVID pandemic, but the rule was temporary, and though it was renewed a few times, is set to expire August 12. Those just are the rules. Each House of Congress is given very broad powers to set their own rules of order, so while they could do a literal infinite number of improbable things in the future, we can only reliably tell you what the rules are not what they could be. And, the rules are (excepting the temporary rule in the House), in order to vote, your ass needs to be in the chamber. --Jayron 32 15:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes ... but ... I am sure that a federal law "trumps" a Congressional "rule" / procedure. In other words ... when Congress establishes a rule/procedure, it cannot violate federal law. I can see that they (the Senators, etc.) might be crafty ... "craft" the ADA law ... and, somehow, have it not apply to them. That was the gist of the question. If (?) the ADA applies to Congress, I am sure that the "disabled" Senators and Reps -- if they wanted -- could ask for "reasonable accommodations" ... for example: Let me vote by phone, email, zoom, etc., because I have a disability that prevents me from physically attending the vote session. Seems like a no-brainer. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Again. We're talking "could" things happen. The future is always filled with any infinite number of possibilities. Congress does not currently make such accommodations, and no court of law has yet determined that its operating procedures are in violation of any federal law. Unless and until that happens, your question is unanswerable. --Jayron 32 15:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Anything "could" happen, in the future. That does not render the question unanswerable. Pretty simple and basic question: does/does not the ADA apply to the federal government / to Congress ... ? Or is there some special "carve-out" ... where they shed any liability / accountability ... as they are (very) well-known to do? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

banned user

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

And this is why Camilla Parker Bowles and the Prince think they will be able to pass her off as "Queen Consort." Although the law is perfectly clear that royals may not marry in register offices, nobody tried it on till 2005, and the court has yet to get round to making a ruling on the matter (although technically it doesn't need to make a ruling because the law is the law regardless). 92.31.140.208 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that royals may not marry in registry offices? The Queen seems to think they're legally married, and has even recently expressed a wish that Camilla be known as Queen Camilla when the time comes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You may be getting confused with the requirement that people at or near the top of the line of succession require the Queen's permission to marry. But once that is granted, they can marry in any legally acceptable way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Major legislative bodies usually consider it essential to their function the the legislator be physically present at the assembly, for a great many reasons (some historical, some procedural, some practical, not least of which is that it's hard to negotiate with a flake). For an elected representative in the U.S., being present at the so-called People's House at least on occasion is also considered essential, as it is effectively the place where the public can petition them in person when they're not at their district office or on campaign. While it's easy nowadays for a sick/disable representative to cast a remote vote, a counterargument is that allowing any type of remote voting would encourage abuse of the system (and if you think legislators wouldn't pretend to be sick to effect a vote or quorum, you don't know how to legislate), and that missing any votes (or even all votes) doesn't necessarily result in you being fired or in any reduction in pay (arguably legislators cannot be impeached and cannot be blocked from the chambers for political action like missing votes, though of course they can be denied party leadership and committee roles). So unless there is something that comes down to discrimination against a protected class (so if Tammy Duckworth were hypothetically blocked from breastfeeding in the Senate to cast her vote, say), I don't think any ADA argument that a disabled legislator must be allowed to vote remotely would fly. However, as long as no large mass in the Senate abuses the COVID exceptions (and I doubt it, but anything's possible), they could be extended indefinitely. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any country that have some sort of "living" tax?Edit

Is there any country that have some sort of "living" tax?

A living tax is a tax you pay just because you are alive instead of dead (and because dead people can't pay taxes, since they can't work more to get extra money to be taken away by the state).187.59.105.223 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You could start with our Poll Tax article, though it doesn't list any current examples. Chuntuk (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think the dead don't pay taxes, check out Inheritance tax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not paid by the dead; that's paid by the person who received the inheritance. --Jayron 32 16:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No matter who writes the check, it's still deducted from the inheritance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the person who writes the check is the living person who inherits the money. And it doesn't have to come from the actual property inherited; the value is fungible. If I inherit a big stack of bills from my dead uncle, and I owe the government $100 for the inheritance, the government doesn't care if the $100 bill I owe them comes from my pocket or the big stack of bills. They just want me to give them $100. But it's still me paying, not my dead uncle. --Jayron 32 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

the person who writes the check is the living person who inherits the money: not true in the UK: according to this government page "Funds from your estate are used to pay Inheritance Tax to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). This is done by the person dealing with the estate (called the ‘executor’, if there’s a will)." and "Your beneficiaries (the people who inherit your estate) do not normally pay tax on things they inherit." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

So, in effect, it's the deceased who's writing the check (via the executor). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats different, because thats is paid just once. A tax paid by the dead would be impossible, even if you had a "living tax" of 50 dollars that is paid even by dead people (their sons pay for it), if a couple that had just one son dies, he would need to pay 150 dollars worth of "living tax" (his mother and father "living tax" + his own "living tax"), if this person, gets married and has a son, and he and his wife dies, this person would need to pay 150 (his father related taxes) + 50 (his taxes) + his mother related taxes, after some amount of time this would grow into some amount of money even bill gates would be unable to pay.187.59.105.223 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In America, at least, typically there's no inheritance tax unless the estate reaches some significant proportion, such as a million dollars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

At my previous example, I was talking about a hypothetical "living tax" where everyone need to pay, even all the dead (they are paid by their sons).187.59.105.223 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

".. some sort of "living" tax? .." is quite a broader question, probably they mean to say ".. some sort of "living" direct tax? .." .

Below given cases are just food for thought, I am not passing any judgement about goodness and utility of those mechanisms. (This is neither for supporting or condoning any sort of "living" direct tax either.)

In broader sense, is not every human being bearing indirect taxes is not paying some tax for they being alive? except for those rural and tribal communities even remotely not part of formal economy.
What happens when exchange rates fall in certain country?
Creation of an economy which makes one pay for food and living place, is not that indirect tax on living?
And what about visa fees on foreign nationals ?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite a number of different concepts thrown together here, almost as if they are somehow related to taxation. First, exchange rates are not in any logical way related to taxes. Second, fees such as for a visa, are not taxes, either. Third, only in a hypothetical 100% nationalized (e.g., communist) economy would daily living expenses such as food and rent be in any way considered taxes. Finally, many people do not pay taxes because of low incomes relative to the minimum tax threshold. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Most complete complete MafaldaEdit

According to the article linked above and to an Amazon research, there's 'Todo Mafalda', Todo Mafalda Edición Especial Aniversario 1964-2014, Todo Mafalda ampliado by Quino, Colección Mafalda: 11 tomos en una lata (individual booklets in a can), all from Lumen. And there's 'Toda Mafalda' (different publishing house).

Is the content of these editions in any way different? All seem to promise the complete Mafalda. Is the difference just a question of binding? Bumptump (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics and musicEdit

Is there really a neurologically or psychologically provable connection between mathematics and music? 2A02:908:424:9D60:A0B6:8352:9046:577C (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You could maybe start by reading Music and mathematics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read it yourself? There is nothing there expressly related to neurological or psychological aspects. --Lambiam 01:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wants to know. But maybe this question could spur some research and potential article improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you didn't read the article properly, and therefore didn't know that there is nothing of relevance to the OP's question in it, you should not have linked to it. --Viennese Waltz 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters. The OP is a one-shot who probably won't be back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you mean, "a provable neurological or psychological connection"? You may find this article interesting: "Bach as mathematician". It has been observed that many mathematicians are also gifted musicians,^[4] but I am not sure the evidence is more than anecdotal. If true, the most likely connection is in that both draw on shared functionality in the brain. --Lambiam 01:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ray Jackendoff wrote on the Generative theory of tonal music (though I know almost nothing about it). The Pythagoreans tried to reduce music to developments of a 3/2 ratio, while Western music of recent centuries is based on the 12 root of 2, which is ugly in some ways (since in a chord no note has a frequency which is a simple fraction of another note -- see Interval ratio), but allows some instruments to be played in any key. AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One can obviously formulate nice mathematical theories of various types of music as well as looser cognitive theories (similar to but cleaner than models of natural language), but the former would not necessarily mean that music is computed by the brain in the same way as mathematics. They are clearly correlated in some way, and it's easy to find supporting studies for the general argument, but I would caution against drawing too firm of conclusions as in the case of connecting mathematics directly to language (say as with transformational-generative grammar, which had something of an implosion with counterpoint from advancement in neuroscience). Another interesting line of research is the correlation of music ability or music training with linguistic or mathematical success, the latter which is generally a mild effect if it exists after being controlled for the general fact that well-off stable families are more likely to boost their kids in both music and scholastics (see Slater et al 2014 for example). In writing this answer I saw a lot of cool stuff too on the effect of music (genre-specific) on studying (Magnus Carlsen notably (sometimes) listens to and mouths along with music during matches). Finally, when I got to college I hypothesized a correlation between STEM majors and perfect pitch, but it seems that hasn't been looked into (thus probably not notable to those who study the phenomenon). SamuelRiv (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Another word of caution: studies demonstrating a neurobiological maths–music correlation, such as the so-called Mozart effect mentioned in the student paper^[5] linked to above, are generally not replication-proof. --Lambiam 11:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

August 6Edit

United States presidential line of successionEdit

Two quick questions about the United States presidential line of succession. (One) Is there any reason why the Framers would put the Speaker of the House "higher" than the Senator President Pro Tem? I always thought that -- generally speaking -- the Senate was the more "esteemed" body of the Congress. And that Senators are more "important" and more "influential" than Reps. More political power and prestige. As a general matter. That being the case, I'd have assumed that the leader of the Senate would carry more weight than the leader of the House. So, any reason / rationale for this ordering? (Two) Also ... any reason why the Framers would not insure that the #3 and #4 "replacement" positions -- the Speaker of the House and the Senator President Pro Tem -- conform to the same party as the President/Vice President being replaced? It would seem unnecessarily disruptive to have the nation (leaders) change parties altogether, on top of the disruption of losing both a President and a VP. No? So, any reason / rationale for this "omission"? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Originally, Senators were not directly elected by “the People”, they were indirectly elected (or even just appointed) by their State Legislatures. Congressmen, on the other hand, were directly elected by the people of their districts. It was felt that a directly elected official should take precedence over a State appointed official. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct. Additionally, the development of the First Party System and the Second Party System happened after the development of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, George Washington's farewell address warns about factionalism. So in general, the existence of parties wasn't something that the founding fathers were thinking about when they designed the system. And, in fact, it was common in the first few elections for the U.S. Vice President to be from a different party, such as John Adams with Thomas Jefferson, which wasn't resolved until the 12th Amendment in 1804. Andre🚐 22:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Our article on the Presidential Succession Act explains it. Tldr: from 1792 to 1886 the order of succession was indeed VP, pres pro tem, speaker. It only took its current configuration, more or less, in 1947. The Constitution, prior to the 1967 25th Amendment, only specifies that the VP succeeds the President and that Congress decides from there. Edit: Interestingly, Truman's motivation for urging the re-adding of Congressional officers next in line in succession seems to be entirely non-cynical and for the good of the country -- it's not that his Secretary of State was incompetent, just not a politician of the people.

I recall a recent question on this desk about government officials serving two branches simultaneously -- that's apparently why legal scholars argued the revised PSA required an amendment to be Constitutional. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Something else to consider… the Vice President of the US is also the actual “President of the Senate” (as opposed to President Pro Temp)… So… you could say that the order in terms of honor is Senate… then House… then back to Senate. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's a head scratcher for you IP. The House speaker or the Senate president pro tempore, have to resign (both their offices & their seats) & cabinet members 'also' have to resign, before assuming the presidential powers & duties. But, once they resign? wouldn't that remove them from the line of succession. FWIW, this 'quirky' reading of the 1947 Succession Act, hasn't been tested yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If both the president and the vice president died, the speaker of the house would instantly become president. Their subsequent resignation as speaker would have no impact on the line of succession. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
As for the issue of a change in the political party running the executive branch, the US Constitution never mentions political parties. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Speaker of the House has been a vastly more powerful office throughout US history than Senate President Pro Tem. The most powerful person in the Senate is the Senate Majority Leader. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August 7Edit

What has been said about Mhair Tribe in this book? Please try to tell.Edit

^[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

^ "Les civilisations de l'Inde".

Karson Chanda, as with your previous questions, I don't understand what kind of answer you are looking for. You have linked to a scan of the book, so what is that you need help on? You can read for yourself what has been said about the Mhair tribe. Do you need somebody to translate from French? Or what? ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The answer to 'or what' can be found in this post: I don't know english language.[6] User Karsen Chandra seems to be using Google Translate to create articles in a language they don't understand, citing sources they don't understand either. I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's best interests to encourage this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this person's talk page shows a history that borders on CIR issues (or English-language issues). Another language Wiki might be better. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

US Presidential Election 2024 / NomineesEdit

Donald Trump and selected supporters in the GOP seem to have repeatedly stated that DT was elected in the 2020 presidential election but that the result has been falsified by proceedings, by machinery or by officials involved.
As such, Mr DT has already been elected twice for the position of president, in 2016 and in 2020.
The US constitution via amendment 22 states that no person must be elected more than two times for this position.
Question: Can a person who believes to have been elected twice be nominated by a party to stand for a third election? It seems that any ensuing election would contravene the letter of the US constitution.

Presumably, a person suffering from severe and proven perceptual delusions may be declared medically unfit for a POTUSine quadrennium, so such a nomination may not be expressed by the once GOP. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM, obviously this situation has never come up in US history until now. I can see a scenario where certain state legislatures and governors might put in place a law requiring presidential candidates to certify that they have not previously been elected president twice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few issues with your premises. The first is that whether one believes something has not bearing on what actually is, and through all performative mechanisms of the U.S. government Biden is president and Trump is not. Second, your 5th presumption is incorrect, because from what I can tell at a brief glance the only expectation that a federal elected official be "fit" in terms of health is the 25th Amendment, for which it is applicable only to the current President (not candidate). Furthermore, per the ADA and OSHA, it seems that the RNC could not use Trump's mental health to prevent him from running unless they think it would interfere with his ability to perform the job, and legally that would be difficult to prove, since it would be hard to argue that Trump is any more nuts now than he was in 2020 when he was both a successful candidate and an (arguably) successful President (in that he wasn't removed from office for being incompetent, would be my argument). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As I'm sure everyone knows by now, Trump was not elected twice, not even in his own mind, Big Lie nonwithstanding. It's a lie that he himself doesn't even believe, it's just rhetoric. So it wouldn't prevent him from running and being elected again. Andre🚐 17:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump is eligible to seek a non-consecutive second term. No matter what he believes. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an easy one. No one can deny, not even Trump, that the person actually sitting in the Oval Office signing documents is Joe Biden. Biden was the person who was actually certified and sworn in as the president. Not Trump. But Trump claims the people chose him, and the votes were interfered with in order to produce the wrong result. So he won the moral victory, but not the actual victory. In his mind. The law is not concerned with moral victories, so that leaves him free to contest again. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August 8Edit

Francis Pearson, barrister's clerkEdit

I have just read a very enjoyable book Pearson, Francis (1935). Memories of a K.C.'s Clerk. London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co., Ltd., and would be interested to know some more biographical details of the author. From his comments within the book he appears to be Roman Catholic, partly Irish (though his father's family are from Bury St Edmunds), served in the 9th Londons in the Kaiser's War achieving the rank of Captain. He seems to have spent some of this time on some sort of special duties, perhaps intelligence. He was a Liberal election agent in Hampshire at one time. He had some sort of connexion with Irish nationalism too, and knew Reginald Dunne and Joseph O'Sullivan, the killers of Sir Henry Wilson. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Web searches will unfortunately be complicated by his younger namesake Francis Pearson, also a soldier and active in politics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan's cessation of semiconductor export to PRCEdit

In case of further deterioration of cross-Strait relations and military escalation can Taiwan stop exporting TSMC semiconductors and other vital electronics to PRC, and potentially strangle it economically? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Assuming Taiwan is indeed a vital supplier to PRC with no alternative, a much simpler plan for Taiwan to get roughly the same outcome would be to launch a few missiles at Beijing. In general mutual interdependence on trade helps secure peace unless there's a severe embargo or threat thereof. Also China's interest in an open Taiwan Strait motivates its restraint as well. If the trade incentive is cut and an economic war threatened, China's only deterrent may be the U.S. military, and such unlikely odds haven't stopped many other nations from risking almost certain war against top Western powers, either hoping that they won't retaliate or that they just might make it (Pearl Harbor, Gulf War, Falklands, etc.). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't be fooled. Neither the PRC nor the ROC has any interest on stopping the exporting of semiconductors. The spice must flow. What politicians say or do to meet their political needs is one thing, but the leadership of neither country is interested in destroying their own economy over the issue. No one is flushing that much cash down the toilet because of "principles". Mainland China accounts for over 1/4 of Taiwan's economy, and the electronics manufacturing sector accounts for 7% of China's national GDP, again neither country is stupid enough to jeopardize that. --Jayron 32 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Above, we have the most logical, carefully thought-out reasoning possible. It is this kind of “they wouldn’t dare cut off their noses to spite there faces” thinking that led to World War I. Try this: What is the domestic political cost of attacking Taiwan, and losing? What is the domestic political benefit of periodically escalating tensions, in response to external events? DOR (HK) (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Tensions may be escalated without intending to launch an all-out military assault. It's part of the political dance. The spice must flow. Taiwan may want to respond in someway, but without anyone to buy the stuff that is making up 1/4 of their economy, they ain't doing shit. No one else has the capacity to buy the semiconductors that China does, and there is no where else for China to get their semiconductors. Politicians only do what the businessmen that keep them in office allow them to do. --Jayron 32 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and the WWI angle is not apt. The global economy we live under now had no analogue 100 years ago. Saying that "this is the thinking that led to WWI" doesn't make any sense because we don't operate on a 1910s economy, we operate in a 2020s economy, and the scope of international trade coupled with the depth of specialization is something that didn't happen in 1910s. The 1910s were still largely a mercantilist, extraction-based, colonial world economy. We don't live in that world anymore. --Jayron 32 16:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It might also be pointed out that TSMC have a major subsidiary facility in Shanghai, which would doubtless have to continue operations and supply the PRC regardless of what decisions were taken in Hsinchu. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The new law for "reducing inflation"Edit

Re: Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The U.S. Senate passed this new law, over the weekend ... this new law for "reducing inflation". Let's assume the House passes it ... and then Biden also passes it. It is now the law. Can that law (realistically and practically) be "voided" if the Republicans take the House in November? Same question ... if the Republicans take both the House and the Senate in November? In other words ... what would be the scenarios if the Republicans wanted to get rid of that new law? What options are (realistically and practically) available to them ... if they win one chamber? If they win both chambers? Thank you. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If the Republicans tried, Biden would probably veto it… so the Repubs would need to have enough of majority to overturn Biden’s veto. That is unlikely. However, IF that were the case, then yes, they could write a new law that effectively cancelled the current one. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(E/C) There will still be a Democratic president at least through January 2025, who would presumably be unlikely to sign a bill undoing his own legislative goals. Therefore, in order to undo the new law, the Republicans would need to either win big enough to override a veto, or take control of the presidency in 2024, while keeping or maintaining control of both houses of Congress. And of course there's still the filibuster to contend with. Taking either the House or the Senate would allow Republicans to prevent much further legislative work by the Democrats, but it wouldn't really enable them to pass their own legislation. The US doesn't really have the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Instead, it has separation of powers, which usually makes it much easier to block things than to do (or undo) things. A Republican Congress does, of course, still have other options than directly legislating: for example, refusing to raise the United States debt ceiling. --Amble (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

See Veto power in the United States. Specifically, for the 118th United States Congress to repeal the legislation, assuming Biden would veto any such attempt, that would require a 2/3rds majority of both houses (the next whole number strictly greater than 2/3 of the members of that house. For the Senate that requires 67 votes, and in the HoR, that requires 291). That seems unlikely to happen in the next election; current predictions at 538.com indicate that the Republicans are only likely to take control of the HoR, though there is about an equal chance that the Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress. There's basically next to no chance that the GOP takes enough seats to control a veto-proof supermajority in both houses. --Jayron 32 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with what Jayron, Amble, and Blueboar have said. Repealing a law is indeed a thing, but tough to pull off. Case in point John McCain's famous vote not to repeal Obamacare. Andre🚐 19:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Religious fountains?Edit

Hosepipe bans are being introduced across the UK. There are some exceptional circumstances when a hosepipe can be used, one of which is "filling a fountain used for religious practices". Obviously I'm not going to attempt to circumvent the ban, but I am intrigued. My Google fu has failed me. Just what are these religious practices that require such a thirsty fountain? Shantavira|^{feed me} 22:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Cantharus (Christianity), Sebil (fountain), Shadirvan. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Mikveh Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Baptismal font --Jayron 32 19:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Baptismal font was my first thought, but it's not a fountain, in that it does not "discharge water" or "jet water into the air". However the words font and fountain do apparently come from the same Latin origin. Possibly fountain has a slightly different meaning in the UK these days. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the intention must be the Islamic fountains (linked above) for wudu, the ritual washing of face and arms before prayer, although the few mosques that I have been in had taps that you can turn off, rather than a continuous fountain. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

August 9Edit

Do US colleges pay to have their college mentioned in movies?Edit

When high-school students in movies want to go to certain colleges, were the movie producers paid to mention them? Or quite in contrary, they had to ask the colleges for permission to mention them? Or it's simply the way it is? Bumptump (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In Life in a Year Jaden Smith applies to Harvard.Bumptump (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Did they do any filming on campus? Have you reviewed the closing credits to see if there's an acknowledgment of Harvard? Sometimes that's a giveaway for product endorsement. I recall in the 1978 film Superman, there's a brief scene where the youngish Clark Kent is pouring some cereal for breakfast. In the voluminous closing credits, one of the sillier ones I've seen (outside of the Airplane! franchise) was "Corn Flakes by Kellogg's". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Colleges are an organization, similar to a corporation or a company, and there are multiple ways that a company or organization can be used in a movie. 1) The company or organization can pay the producers for product placement; which is basically a form of in-universe advertising. 2) The movie producers can pay the company or organization a licensing fee to use the name in the movie; the name and logos of an organization are trademarks of the brand, and there are generally restrictions on their use. 3) For brief mentions or incidental uses, there may be a claim of fair use, though fair use has become more restrictive over time. 4) The producers may just use it anyways, and hope no one objects. I think that covers all of the bases, and I'm sure one could come up with any number of examples that meet each of them from the thousands upon thousands of movies that have been made throughout history. --Jayron 32 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed your fair-use link. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the legalities or finances, but typically it's very much in a school's commercial interest to be used in name or as a set piece in any major media production, even if the production may depict some aspects of the school or its mission in a negative light. There are ideological and practical limits of course: Spike Lee was evicted from all his campus sets during the production of School Daze. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The powers that be of the University of Missouri initially agreed to let Animal House be filmed on their "premises", but then changed their minds. William Beaty Boyd, president of the University of Oregon, was more receptive, ensuring his place in cinematic history. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the University of Oregon is not mentioned, it's known as "Faber College". Some films (Legally Blonde, How High, Rudy, etc.) actually do use real university names in their productions. Others, such as the aforementioned Animal House, PCU, Higher Learning, etc. all used made-up names for their setting. It really comes down to any deals worked out between the university and the producers, and money can go both ways, or not at all, in these kinds of deals. --Jayron 32 17:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the only hint in Animal House that the University of Oregon stands in for the fictional "Faber College" is in the closing credits, thanking the people of Eugene. Another example is the fiction "Hudson University", referenced frequently in the Law & Order franchise. I think they use NYU for campus scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Another Baroque keyboard questionEdit

I am trying to play this piece, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbp7hIsvQfg&list=FLwlj9BU0SLXAXar_vner8jA&index=1)

Which I believe is the troisieme prelude from Couperin ( F. COUPERIN: Préludes de L'Art de toucher le Clavecin (Paris, 1716-17))

The sheet music can be found here, and my question probably dosent make much sense unless you're looking at it (http://vmirror.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/0/06/IMSLP03779-ArtToucherCouperin.pdf), (toward the bottom)

Anyways, the first measure has a odd symbol which if I understand is a c clef? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clef#/media/File:Mensural_c_clef_06.svg) However, I am unclear if it is surrounding the first line of the stave thus making the first line on the top stave a middle c. (Normally an e on the treble clef)

It follows then, I think, that the first note on the right hand (or top stave) should then be a d, however it didn't sound right when I played it on the piano, this might be to tuning differences between the harpsichord, however, I have no way of knowing.

There are numerous other marks I have encountered, and in addition to the above problem would appreciate any resources or directions to a "key" of baroque symbols.

Thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:A041:8677:C00:A936 (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What a cool thing! Yes,that's a C clef. Here's another transcription, in more modern notation and a trilingual commentary. The same volume has, at the end, an "explanation of the signs and ornaments of Couperin." [7] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for your help! This guide will be very helpful Gordon. And in response to the other person I wrote it a bit odd but I meant that I inferred the first note ( as in of the actual piece not the stave) of the right hand ( top stave) should be a d. Regardless the aforementioned shared resources appears to be an immense help.

Once again, thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:611B:CB5C:6F9C:EA98 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a C clef, positioned with the middle C on the bottom of the five lines - called a Soprano clef. I don't know which note you mean, because in the example I'm looking at (on p 19) the first note is a C, on that line. Only the Alto and Tenor versions of the C clef are in use today, and they are used on in particular situations (the Alto for viola music, and the Tenor for cello and bassoon). ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This C clef was commonly used in baroque (and even early classical) music - see for example the MS of the famous Prelude in C from Bach's Well-tempered Clavier. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Dame?Edit

Does Lulu's CBE officially make her a Dame? -- 2603:6081:1C00:1187:B877:36EB:FE54:69F8 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How come Olivia Newton-John (DBE) is a Dame and Lulu (CBE) is not? Is the queen head of state for Australia but not Scottland, or something? 2603:6081:1C00:1187:B877:36EB:FE54:69F8 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I only learned that Olivia had passed when I followed your link. Some honours are in the personal gift of the Queen (e.g. the Order of the Garter, Companion of Honour). Otherwise, she follows recommendations from committees or members of the public. 92.31.140.208 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The Order of the British Empire is not one of those in the personal gift of the Queen, the awards are made by the Honours Committee and its various sub-committees. Newton-John's DBE was awarded "For services to Charity, to Cancer Research and to Entertainment" [8] This is a British honour as Australia has its own system. As Newton-John was born Cambridge, she may have retained dual-nationality, or perhaps Australians don't really count as foreign. Foreign citizens are often given British honours, but they cannot use the titles that go with them. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Lulu's CBE was awarded "For services to Music, to Entertainment and to Charity". [9] Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A bit more digging reveals that citizens of countries that have the Queen as the head-of-state are allowed to use British titles. [10] Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Though even then it gets complicated. See, for example, the Canadian titles debate (including the section on other Commonwealth countries down at the bottom) and the ruling in Black v Chrétien (2001) for a relatively recent legal case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Australia is a Commonwealth realm, meaning that it is not only a member of the Commonwealth of Nations but also has the Queen as head of state. We could continue to recommend that the Queen of Australia award knighthoods, but we have chosen not to. British (Imperial) awards such as KBE/DBE/GBE, KCB/DCB/GCB, KT, KG, Knight bachelor have not been recommended by any Australian government since the 1990s. BUT, Australians may still be awarded knighthoods on the recommendation of the UK government to the Queen of the UK, the Papua New Guinea government to the Queen of Papua New Guinea, and so on for all the other Commonwealth realms. And most Living Australian knights and dames are in that category. The Queen of Australia may still award Imperial honours in her own gift to Australian citizens, such as awards of the Royal Victorian Order. The remaining few living people are Knights or Dames of the Order of Australia. The Order has been in existence since 1975, but the Knight/Dame category has come and gone, not once but twice (and during its last incarnation 2014-15, Prince Philip was awarded an AK, which was so controversial here that I'm sure it was the final nail in the coffin for Australian-awarded knighthoods). It is not currently a level of award, but previous recipients get to use Sir or Dame for life. Olivia Newton-John had dual British and Australian citizenship, and her damehood was awarded in her British capacity on the recommendation of the UK government to the Queen of the UK in recognition of her work in the UK (and more broadly). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

*Why does the OP believe that Lulu is not entitled to use the style "Dame". They appear to have come to that conclusion with zero evidence. No where can I see where here CBE is any different than any other CBE, and as such, she should be entitled to use the styles allowed to the holders of the honour. Order of the British Empire states "The senior two ranks of Knight or Dame Grand Cross, and Knight or Dame Commander, entitle their members to use the title of Sir for men and Dame for women before their forename." (bold mine). Lulu is allowed to use Dame, and the OP has asserted, without any evidence, that she isn't? Can the OP please indicate where they read that she is disallowed from using the normal style? --Jayron 32 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that the OP is complaining about inconsistency here in WP, not what is happening in real life… the opening sentence of Olivia’s bio article includes the honorific, while the opening sentence of Lulu’s bio article does not. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

:::That's not what the OP said. The OP said "How come ... Lulu (CBE) is not?" They have not provided any evidence that she isn't. This has nothing to do with what is written in Wikipedia, which I must note is Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If the OP has drawn a conclusion about something from a Wikipedia article without verifying it with an outside source, that's a bad idea. But the fact remains, the OP has still not said where they read that Lulu is not allowed to use Dame if she so chooses. I can't find that conclusion anywhere. --Jayron 32 12:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hold on - I got it wrong… The distinction is one of rank. Lulu is just a “Commander” (CBE) while Newton-John was a “Knight/Dame Commander” (DBE) - which is a higher rank. KBE/DBE can use the honorific, but CBE can not. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see Order of the British Empire#Composition: "the rank of... Dame Commander of the Order is the lowest rank of damehood". Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I screwed that up horribly as well. The ranks are MBE, OBE, CBE, K/DBE, and GBE, and only the highest two are entitled to "Dame". Lulu, as a CBE, which is not a rank that earns a "Dame". Olivia Newton-John was a DBE, which does get to use "Dame". Please ignore my earlier posts. Much clearer now. I feel stupid. Sorry all. --Jayron 32 14:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Understandable, it's ridiculously complicated. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32, it's best you strike them out, and apologise to the OP for taking them to task for daring not to know the intricacies of British honorifics, when you reveal yourself as an ultracrepidarian of the first water. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

So done. --Jayron 32 11:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

August 10Edit

Is this a reliable source?Edit

They speak Meena language."Meena". -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The place for questions about reliability is the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. And in order to determnine reliability, we'd need publication information, not a link to a random PDF. It's by a Professor, apparenty, but who published it? Has it been edited by a reputable publisher? ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The paper is said to be published in the journal Bhashhiki, of which the author of the paper is the editor in chief, which is somewhat problematic. (The link also only gives the year of the paper, while the journal is quarterly, making it harder to verify, but whatever.) The only linguistics researcher with his name only appears in Google Scholar to have publications on ResearchGate, without journal information, though his other blog suggests he has more articles in non-English journals (but without listing detailed citation information). He doesn't claim to speak other Indian languages besides Hindi and Urdu (which seems unusual to me). I read the first paper of his on his blog, which is fine, and the first paper on Scholar/ResearchGate, which definitely needs a good editor and is very confusing in who its audience is supposed to be, but otherwise is uncontroversial.

So if he's one of only a very few researchers on Meena, can you trust him? I think it comes down to whether he makes particularly extraordinary claims in this or in his other research, and whether he is particularly suited to make new claims in this field of study specifically. In the former case, not that I can see. In the latter, his paper on Meena says he did a survey of Rajasthan languages previously, but he also doesn't claim to speak any Rajasthani-type languages (which may or may not be indicative of anything for an Indian linguist), so I don't know whether he can "intuit" whether Meena should be considered a distinct language, but his paper is not really about that issue anyway. In terms of whether he is actually doing these studies in a thorough, useful manner, I don't know -- I never studied that type of linguistics. But it would seem he's more or less reliable, but somebody who knows more about his field specifically should comment on whether the Meena description, or the Rajasthan survey, was actually properly/usefully done. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Similarity of exonyms and endonymsEdit

As was probably noticed before, often the exonyms of various places sound similar or roughly similar to endonyms and vice versa, such as Danzig/Gdansk, Breslau/Wrocław, Petrozavodsk/Petroskoi, etc. One would expect that an invading enemy or a new owner would pick a totally different exonym of the occupied locality to erase the memory of past ownership, yet it doesn't look as such and such similarity is noticeable in several languages. Is the preference for historical similarity that common? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

". . . an invading enemy or a new owner would pick a totally different exonym of the occupied locality to erase the memory of past ownership"

Changes of territorial ownership or control are often not as hostile as you imply, especially in Europe in whose long history such changes are not uncommon. They can result from inheritances within interlinked royal families, for example. They often occur between immediate neighbors, whose languages are likely related and/or influenced by borrowings and sprachbund effects.

Moreover, Europe's tangled history is such that language speakers, not infrequently bi- or multi-lingual anyway, are not neatly separated, but greatly intermingled and with linguistic exclaves and inclaves. Language and naming is about communication – why make it intentionally more difficult and antagonise the populace deliberately? See Realpolitik. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, most European states were not nation states in the modern sense; that's an innovation of the late 19th and early 20th century, as governments found novel ways to consolidate their power over a populace that was increasingly becoming politically active against said governments. The kinds of ethnic cleansing we saw in the 20th century just didn't happen for most of history. Kings don't really care what language their subjects speak, so long as they work the fields and pay their taxes, it is unimportant to them. It was very common in the past for a city to keep essentially the same name as it changed hands, only changing its name to fit the peculiarities of the new language. The various names of Breslau all relate to "Vratislaus I, Duke of Bohemia", for whom the city is named, with variations to spelling and pronunciation to match the language of the state that ruled it at the time. The city was probably always multiethnic, as most cities are, and indeed probably were moreso in the past. Regardless of who controlled the city, there were significant populations of people in that city who spoke German, Polish, Yiddish, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech, Romani, or any of a number of other languages, and they probably had their own unique way of saying and spelling the name of their city. There was no sense that the subjects would be required to learn the language of their King, or whatever. It just didn't happen until the politics of later eras sought to use ethnic uniformity as a way of eliminating threats to power. --Jayron 32 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I had ancestors that were citizens (or the equivalent) of the Duchy of Teschen, which existed until 1918. The territory has changed hands since then, and I've noticed that the name of Teschen switched to a transliteration of that name of who ever 'owned' the land locally. Teschen used to be part of the Holy Roman Empire, which really was a mixture of fiefdoms and duchies that were ruled by local lords in a loose confederation. Sorting out where my ancestors came from is a chore, so I just say Hapsburg Austrian, as they were Catholic. Note as well the modest mutual intelligibility between the many Slavic languages. As Jayron says, these cities were multiethnic, and this can be seen even in English with the many loan words that carried over from other languages. I grew up in a Jewish area, and although not Jewish, many of the Yiddish slang words common in the area were used by my family. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, as our article notes, many exonyms were created simply to make it easier to pronounce a foriegn name. London has never been invaded by the Finns, but they still call it Lontoo. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that when names are changed by "an invading enemy or a new owner," it's the endonym that they change because that's what they control. They can force the locals to call the place Istanbul or Myanmar or whatever, people elsewhere might prefer to hang on to the old name. Chuntuk (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Istanbul is an interesting story; and works the other way from what you think it does. The city remained officially Constantinople until the 1930s. However, the local people had been calling it "Istanbul" (a Turkish approximation of the Greek meaning roughly "to the City") for centuries, and it was a co-official name in Turkish since the 1730s. It was the popular name that was adopted by official sources later, not a novel name forced on the populace. --Jayron 32 12:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

An example of a failed renaming is Puerto Argentino. Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Delving into that a little more, when the British discovered a group of islands in the south Atlantic in 1690 they called them the Falkland Islands. When the French populated them in 1764 they gave them the name Îles Malouines. To advance the fiction that they were actually discovered by Fernão de Magalhães, who wasn't in the area in 1519, and were thus owned by Spain (and later Argentina), Argentina identified them by the later name. 92.23.217.220 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

August 11Edit

Liz Cheney election adEdit

It's three o clock in the A of M here in sunny California (Bay area), and I just saw a TV ad on Fox News (never mind why the TV is on that channel) for Liz Cheney's re-election. She is a Representative from Wyoming. So why is she running ads in California? It looked like a generic ad, not aimed at out of staters. Is it to drum up donations or what? I didn't notice it asking for donations. Does this have something to do with her rehabiliation with the Democrats due to her activities on the Jan 6 committee? The region here is heavily Democratic, though of course Fox is a GOP channel. Thanks. 67.164.114.199 (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Individual voters are less important to candidates than donors are. The potential to raise money is more important than the ability to change the mind of a few local voters, especially when those minds are more resistant to persuasion than ever before. In the past 30 or so years, politics has become tribal, with most voters blindly voting for their party without regard for individual issues, campaigns are mainly about raising fundage. There's a lot more money in San Francisco than in Cheyenne. --Jayron 32 14:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's odd then that this was the first time I've ever seen an ad for an out-of-state politician here. I'd think they'd all do that. The TV sound was thankfully off but this ad didn't seem specifically like a donation pitch either--just "re-elect Liz Cheney". We don't even get ads for presidential candidates during general elections here, since CA is not a swing state. Of course we are slammed with them during primaries. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:34C5 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Was this on the local Fox affiliate, or the national channel? Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ben Franklin oldest in the US at time of death?Edit

Was Ben Franklin the oldest person in the United States at the time of his death?Naraht (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This question may be unanswerable. I don't know that Native Americans had a system of registration of births, marriages and deaths at that time. 92.23.217.220 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

While Benjamin Franklin enjoyed a longer-than-average lifespan - dying in 1790 at 84 years old - octogenarians were far from unheard of in the late eighteenth century. Unfortunately, the 1790 U.S. Census (the first decennial Census) did not record the age of its subjects, so we're denied an easy counterexample there.

Possibly someone has jumbled up the fact that Franklin was the oldest of the U.S. Founding Fathers (70 years old in 1776)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Franklin was definitely the oldest among the group we call the Founding Fathers of the United States, by quite a margin, being 70 years old when he signed the Declaration of Independence. The Average age of the signers being 44, and a dozen were younger than 35. However, to say that Franklin was the oldest among a specific, fairly small well documented group is very different than saying he was, among the salmost 4 million Americans at the time of his death, the oldest of them. At 84 years old, he was older than the average life span, but centenarians were well known in the world, even in his day. Indeed, at the upper end, people in his time did not live all that shorter than modern people do; life span improvement has been largely due to two factors: reducing childhood mortality and reducing motherhood risks (many women died in childbirth at the time). Indeed, a person's life expectancy for a male at, say, 25 years old has not moved all that much since the 1700s. Which is to say that I would find it very unlikely that an 84-year old was the oldest American at any point in history. --Jayron 32 14:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

No. [11] --Amble (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Naraht -- You could do a Wikidata search to intersect categories such as Category:American centenarians with an appropriate range of dates of birth to try to find really old people at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Wikidata query I ran: [12]. A lot of the birth and death dates are incorrect or generic, but I found Hannah (Metcalf) Huntington (1702 - 1791) as one example. --Amble (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

August 12Edit

[1] "Les civilisations de l'Inde".

[1]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Contents