Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Help identifying WWII uniform patch

Sheridan Le Fanu wrote "Strange Event in the Life of Shalken the Painter" in 1839, when he was 25. Would he have had the opportunity to see many, or any, of Godfried Schalcken's paintings by then? From our article on Le Fanu he doesn't seem to have travelled outside Ireland at this point, so were there any Shalcken's in Dublin or elsewhere in Ireland at the time that we know of? Also, I know Gerard Douw had a niece Anthonia van Tol, but did he have any others? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Le Fanu wrote the name of the painter as "Godfrey Schalken". [http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/schalcken_godfried.html Artcyclopedia] does not list any Schalcken paintings in Irish museums.

:"Velderkaust", reused by Le Fanu in The Wyvern Mystery, is not a plausible Dutch surname, so this niece is almost certainly entirely fictional.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, but did he have any other nieces? DuncanHill (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://www.genealogieonline.nl/en/stamboom-tol-schakel/I1463.php Genealogieonline.nl] (not a reliable source) mentions another daughter, Marya van Tol, among Simon van Tol and Catharina Vechters's children, but I found no further information (or corroboration). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::More precisely, these were stepnieces, being daughters of Dou's older stepsister Trijntge (Catharina) Vechters.^{[https://books.google.com/books?id=6SdL5jmvH2QC&pg=PA345&dq=%22halve+zuster%22+%22(Catharina)+Vechters%22&hl=en]}  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I just learnt about [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/292/313 Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi], decided by SCOTUS in 1934. Are there any other incidents of foreign countries suing, or being sued by, a US state in US federal court? Mississippi seems to have argued against the suit on the constitutional grounds that states may not have relations with foreign countries without congressional consent (although I didn't see this being addressed by the court's opinion, which ruled for Mississippi on other grounds), and if other lawsuits of this sort have occurred, I'm left wondering if this constitutional provision has ever had an effect in those cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 17 =

The United States Post Office, Custom House, and Courthouse (Fernandina, Florida) was once the seat of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida before the Middle District was created. Surprising, since Fernandina Beach, Florida is in the state's extreme north, the district's original northern border was at the latitude of Charlotte Harbor, Florida — 400 km south of Fernandina Beach — and the article makes no mention of boundary amendments before the creation of the Middle District. Why would the court have met outside its jurisdiction — especially extremely outside its jurisdiction, not just a tiny bit over the border? Nyttend (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:A quote from a 1954 hearing before a subcommittee of the United States House Committee on Appropriations: "{{tq|Court for the southern district is held at Fernandina, Fort Myers, Fort Pierce, Jacksonville, Key West, Miami, Ocala, Orlando, Tampa, and West Palm Beach.}}" So Fernandina Beach was not the sole location. Our article David W. Dyer Federal Building and United States Courthouse (located in Miami) calls it "an historic United States Post Office and federal courthouse of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida" and states: "In 1926, a devastating hurricane decimated southern Florida, prompting Congress to appropriate more than $2 million for a new courthouse in Miami in 1928", and "When it opened [in 1932], the building housed all Miami-area federal agencies with the exception of the Weather Service. ... It was occupied by federal courts and various federal agencies until 2008."

:The single source cited in our article on the Fernandina Beach building only refers to it as "Post Office and Custom House, built in 1910",^{[https://archive.org/details/guidetofloridash00reev/page/69/mode/1up?q=%22Post+Office+and+Custom+House%2C+built+in+1910%22]} not mentioning a function as courthouse.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Fernandina Beach is in Nassau County, which until 1962 was in the Southern District of Florida, so the court location there was not outside of its district, notwithstanding that Nassau County, Florida is on the northern border of Florida. “Southern District,” in other words, was and is a misnomer, as you can see from the map of current district court boundaries at List of United States district and territorial courts#/media/File:US Court of Appeals and District Court map.svg. John M Baker (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a particular graffiti style which I have often seen in continental Europe: each word is hand-painted in blocky black capitals, on its own painted rectangle not shared with any other word. The rectangles are all the same colour. Like this:

800px

I have never seen this in the UK, Ireland, or the US. Does the style have a name of its own? Is it found elsewhere? Marnanel (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Marnanel It appears to be on sheets of paper glued to the wall rather than graffiti. I suspect this is to avoid being accused of vandalism. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::In Britain you'd still be accused of vandalism. Is there some French law permitting bill stickers for political purposes? DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, there's a legitimate-looking poster pasted up right beside it, so it seems plausible. Matt Deres (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm fairly sure you are allowed to affix a poster to your own building, or else with the permission of the owner, so a political poster on a wall is not by itself unlawful. I'm also fairly sure that in many countries it is not unheard of that supporters of political parties put up election posters in ways that are not approved by the authorities.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Indeed. And sometimes civic-minded citizens [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/naBXN7tcY4I take matters into their own hands to remove such egregious offences]. (The fact that the citizen in this case was the husband of the opponent of the candidate in the poster was an irrelevant coincidence.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::If it's sheets of paper glued to the wall then it would be Street poster art. The paper may be stuck on with Wheatpaste, and "wheatpasting" is sometimes used as a term for flyposting like this. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 18 =

So, I don't know if this topic fits this forum, but I'll just try anyways. Recently I wrote an article about this parliament member, and here it says that he received an M.B.A. John Luther University, Utah, 1992-1993. I tried to search about this university everywhere, and I can't find the named being mentioned alone, except its distance education program in Indonesia, the John Luther Institute of Management. I suspect that this university is a degree mill, but how do I know if this is true or not? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 22:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I looked for "John Luther University" in both Newspapers.com and Google. Nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I also could not find any papers published by faculty or students of the institute. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:A Google search for "John Luther Institute of Management" also draws a blank. BTW, I do not see what this ex-MP is notable for.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Being an MP? (WP:NPOL): Politicians and judges who have held...national...have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Jeromi Mikhael You don't say where that university is mentioned, but it is obviously an unreliable source, so ignore it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's ref no. 1 in the article Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That reference's first use is for the statement "He received a degree in administrative sciences from the College of Administrative Sciences of the Institute of State Administration in 1991."

:::From websearching, this presumably refers to the Lembaga Administrasi Negara - LAN, variously translated as 'The Indonesian Institute of State Administration', 'National Institute of Public Administration Indonesia', etc.

:::Academic institutions in developing countries often collaborate with other such bodies overseas to teach and/or administrate and award particular qualifications. It may be that LAN has or had such an arrangement with this "John Luther Institute of Management", which does not necessarily speak to the nature or academic validity of the latter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.170.37 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I havent inserted the statement on his MBA because I think it's unreliable. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I found another recipient, Riswansyah Djahri, apparently an ex-member of the DPD, being interviewed in Radar Lampung: "Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) John Luther University Sait{{sic}} Lake City, Utah, USA 1995".  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 19 =

When Northern Rock collapsed and was nationalized back in 2007, the government sought a buyer. Virgin Group stepped forward with an offer in October 2007.

The government rejected that offer (and all other offers) at that point, and none of the suitors for the collapsed bank were offering to cover all of the bank's liabilities, which was the government's hope and goal.

Now, four years later, On 17 November 2011 the UK Government announced the sale of Northern Rock to... Virgin Money (part of the aforementioned Virgin Group) for £747 million. The deal went through.

My question is, did the U.K. government gain anything from the four year delay? If the best deal that could be obtained, would fail to cover all of Northern Rock's liabilities, why wait four years for a deal that had been offered and rejected back in 2007?

Did it take four years of government scrutiny to simply appreciate the inevitable reality of the situation? Or is there a different explanation?

{{ping|DOR (HK)}}, you're our resident economist; do you have any thoughts? Also {{ping|John M Baker}} - you're our resident corporate lawyer. I know this isn't really a legal question; but I wonder if your corporate expertise can shed any light on this sort of situation. Others feel free to add their $0.02, of course.

EDIT: Pinging also {{ping|John Z}} and {{ping|Dragons flight}} as you two have answered banking-related questions from me in the past. I'd love to hear your thoughts and insights on this. Eliyohub (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can’t say that I am too familiar with the Northern Rock transaction, but obviously the situation in 2011 was very different from that in 2007, and there is nothing inherently surprising in the government making a different decision. The government always planned to sell Northern Rock at some point. It apparently believed in 2007 that temporary nationalization, with perceived governmental support, would be less costly than a sale to a third party. John M Baker (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::As well as the economic situation being very different, it was two different governments (one Labour, one mostly Conservative) with different views on the merits of nationalisation and privatisation.

::PS: WP:ENGVAR would suggest we should be offering our two penn'orth rather than $0.02 ;) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If the ‘’best’’ deal was the one offered in 2007, AND WE KNEW IT AT THE TIME, then we can draw conclusions about what might be gained by waiting. What we knew at the time was (a) a buyer was needed; (b) said buyer would ideally cover all of the banks STILL UNKNOWN liabilities; and (c) said buyer would be politically, legally, morally, etc, etc, acceptable. Based on what we know today, there is very little to gain (in the Wikipedia milieu) by speculating as to why a decision was made later, rather than earlier. DOR (ex-HK) (talk)

In {{cite book|last=Wilson|first=Harold|author-link=Harold Wilson|title=A Prime Minister on Prime Ministers|publisher=Weidenfeld and Nicolson and Michael Joseph|location=London|isbn=0-718-11625-9|page=110|chapter=William Ewart Gladstone}} we read "When the Labour Government was formed in 1964 , two new ministers met outside the Cabinet room, exchanged jobs, and came back to tell the Prime Minister, who told them to go to the departments to which they had been allocated. Within a week both were saying how glad they were to be where they had been sent." Who were those two ministers? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Possibly Richard Crossman who had been Shadow Education Secretary but was given the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and Michael Stewart who had shadowed housing but was given the education portfolio. See [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Constitutional_Practice/wTBi_Z9-BpUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=richard+crossman+1964+ministerial+appointment&pg=PA181&printsec=frontcover Constitutional Practice: The Foundations of British Government (p. 181)]. A copy of Crossman's Diaries of a Cabinet Minister might shed more light. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think you've got it. "In 1964 Wilson sent Crossman to Housing and Local Government and Stewart to Education. They had held the reverse portfolios in opposition and asked Wilson to give them their old responsibilities back. He refused." [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=52eGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA106] --Antiquary (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Alansplodge}} and {{re|Antiquary}} Thank you both, I had Crossman in the back of my mind when I read it. Stewart is rather a forgotten figure nowadays. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 21 =

According to {{cite book|last=Blair|first=David|title=Gothic Short Stories|year=2002|publisher=Wordsworth Editions|location=Ware|isbn=1-84022-425-8|page=242}} in 1919 Ralph Adams Cram "wrote a preface to a book devoted to claiming that the Great War had been predicted in the 'automatic writings' of mediums". I would be grateful to know what that book was. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|DuncanHill}} [https://archive.org/details/hillofvisionfore00bond The Hill of Vision] by Frederick Bligh Bond. Zacwill (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If only Bligh Bond had published [https://archive.org/stream/gateofremembranc00bonduoft The Gate of Remembrance] saying where he was going to dig and why, before he started excavating, it would have been so much more convincing. MinorProphet (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

If Maghrebi Arabs were involved in the Barbary slave trade, would the Barbary slave trade be part of the broader Arab slave trade. 2A0A:EF40:13B6:7201:982F:AB47:AFFC:9E7 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• That would depend on what the sources say. My understanding is that the Barbary slave trade involved maritime routes, where capture occurred within a day's march of the coastline in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic. Those captured being principally Christians. Those involved in this trade were not only Arabs, but people of many ethnicities including Berbers, Turks Italians, Dutch, English, Albanians and Greeks, all nominally serving the Ottomans. The Arab slave trade usually refers to the enslaving of subsaharan people, and trafficking them either over long distances by land or through the Indian ocean. However, there are many books on these topics, and it would be necessary to read several of them and decide how fair they consider the two phenomena to be separate.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

According to {{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Roy | author-link = Roy Jenkins |title=The Chancellors |place=London |publisher=Papermac |year=1999 |isbn=0333730585 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/chancellors0000jenk | chapter = Sir John Simon }} "When the present Duke of Kent was born in 1935 he was one of the last Home Secretaries to attend a royal accouchement". Now, Edward was the son of a younger son of the monarch at the time. I would like to know 1) what level of closeness to the monarch was regarded as needing a Home Secretary in attendance (eg, only direct descendants? grand-children but not great-grandchildren? etc), and 2) who WAS the last Home Secretary to attend such an event? Also, were there any occasions when an alternative minister performed the duty?Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you trust [https://marilynsroyalblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/royal-births.html some gal named Marilyn] it was a government minister(s) after the Warming Pan Baby up to Edward VIII when it became Home Secretary, the last Simon for Princess Alexandra. fiveby(zero) 03:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC) [https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/kent/british-government-minister-witnessed-the-birth-of-princess-alexandra-85-years-ago-to-ensure-there-was-no-baby-swapping-170142/ Some guy named Charlie confirms]. fiveby(zero) 03:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Fiveby}} Thanks, I found the probably more reliable London Gazette had [https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100028 this to say]:

From 1894, home secretaries were required to attend royal births for reasons of verification – to ensure that the baby and potential heir to the throne was a descendent of the monarch, and not an imposter. Previous to this, the royal birth room would have been even more crowded with privy councillors and ministers (along with medical practitioners and ladies-in-waiting, among others).

::As for the Warming Pan baby:

This Day between Nine and Ten in the morning the QUEEN was safely delivered of a PRINCE at St James’s, his Majesty, the Queen Dowager, most of the Lords of the Privy Council, and Divers Ladies of Quality being present

::For the future Edward VIII

ON Saturday, the 23rd instant, at ten o'clock P.M., Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York was safely delivered of a Prince. Their Royal Highnesses The Princess of Wales, The Duchess of Teck, and The Duke of York were present. Mr. Secretary Asquith was also present

::And the last Home Secretary was Simon, for Princess Alexandra. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 22 =

Anyone knows where I could find this edition? This is a source cited in Adam Schwarz's A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s. — 王桁霽 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you access [https://search.worldcat.org/title/232119003 any of these libraries]? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|王桁霽}} The best place to try is the Resource Exchange. DuncanHill (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=9780813388816

:https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Waiting-Indonesia-1990s/dp/0813388813 Stanleykswong (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

history of sanitation 82.4.170.5 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:history of sanitation. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I think that's the first occasion in my 20+ years at the Ref Desks where the answer is identical to the question. This is a model of perfection we should all aspire to. Well done, AlmostReadytoFly.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 23 =

I have seen some people with the Quran, and they would have a digital copy of the Quran, and basically, they can see the Quranic Arabic version and translated version at the same time. I also like how they look into Tafsir too. I want something like this for the Bible. Something that will show the original language and translated language side by side, even though I can't read the dead languages, but a recitation of the biblical text would be nice even if I don't understand a word, also accompanied with scholarly exegesis just so I know what the piece of old text means. Yrotarobal (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Good luck finding an official original language Bible. But I googled "bible in hebrew with english translation", as an example, and found various things, typically called "Interlinear Bible". Maybe one or more of those items could help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure whether or not its publications have parallel text as you desire, but you might be interested in the ongoing work of the Original Bible Project. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks guys. I went searching for "Interlinear Bible" and found it. Cool. Exactly what I wanted. Reading the English translation feels like I am reading backwards. The translation helps though. I like the original text and the transliteration, but I can't make use of the transliteration because I still can't pronounce it. What does it sound like? Is there an audio recording somewhere of the Bible and the Christian New Testament books? How do I read the Hebrew abjad and Koine Greek alphabet? Do I just use the modern Hebrew abjad to pronounce the biblical Hebrew words, like how Chinese people use the modern pronunciation to pronounce Classical Chinese texts because the Chinese logograms themselves don't preserve sound that well? And what about the medieval Latin version of the Bible? Say, why are Christians less tied to the original languages? I have taken a look at Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Chinese people, and the peoples all seem to have direct access to the original writing and modern translation. But for Western European Christians, the original writing of Koine Greek gets replaced by Latin, which gets replaced by regional vernaculars? What about Greek Christians? Do the modern Greeks read the Bible's New Testament in the older Greek and modern Greek side by side? And in the New Testament, there are references to Greek gods like Hades, Zeus and Hermes. Is this reflective of ancient and modern Greek society, merging the Greek cosmology of the world with the Hebrew cosmology of the world? Yrotarobal (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::See for some information {{section link|Biblical Hebrew#Phonology}}. This is a reconstruction; also, there was both synchronic variation (dialects) and diachronic variation (through evolution of the language and its pronunciation). People reciting from the Tanakh will generally use the Modern Hebrew phonology, or if they are Yiddish speakers be influenced by the very different Yiddish phonology, but if they are historically minded they may make an effort to approximate the Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Now, I need to find an audio recording of reciting from the Tanakh so then I can follow along as I read. Yrotarobal (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The Bible was originally translated into Latin (the Latin Vulgate) to make it accessible to those Christians who did not speak Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. The Jews in Egypt had a translation of the Hebrew Bible called the Septuagint in the third century BC. Translations are utilized so those not familiar with the original languages can have access to the Bible.

:::I am learning Greek since I would like to read the New Testament in its original language and I own an interlinear Bible that has Greek on side and English on the other.

:::The practice of translating the Bible into a language the common people are familiar with is normal. For example, Adoniram Judson a missionary to Buurma translated the Bible into the language of the people of Buurman. And Reformer Martin Luther translated the Bible into German so that the German people might have access the Scriptures.

:::Anyway, I hope that was helpful. 2600:1007:B002:6F08:4070:E62D:E59D:F64C (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 26 =

I am looking for good sources for a couple of quotations used in our article David Lloyd George. They are:

1) in 1880 "Is it not high time that Wales should [have] the powers to manage its own affairs", and

2) in 1890, "Parliament is so overweighted that it cannot possibly devote the time and trouble necessary to legislate for the peculiar and domestic retirement of each and every separate province of Britain".

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The second quote should be "domestic requirements", not "domestic retirement", I think, and I found it on page 87 in Life of David Lloyd George by Herbert du Parcq, Baron du Parcq, Caxton, 1912. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::The version in Parcq has [https://archive.org/details/lifeofdavidlloyd01dupauoft/page/87/mode/1up a few differences]: "Taking the arguments in favour of Irish Home Rule, the first is the contention that the Imperial Parliament is so overweighted with the concerns of a large empire that it cannot possibly devote the time and trouble necessary to legislate for the peculiar and domestic requirements of each and every separate province." —Simon Harley (Talk). 15:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Sluzzelin}}, {{re|Simon Harley}} Thank you, "requirements" is clearly correct, I've used du Parcq for the 1890 quotation. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Both quotes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lloyd_George&diff=1075448257&oldid=1075447668 were added in 2022], and the first quote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_devolution&diff=1075846530&oldid=1075337853 added] to Welsh devolution two days later. The National Library of Wales blog post cited as a source does not include the quote, funnily enough. —Simon Harley (Talk). 15:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The first quote is actually by T. E. Ellis. See [https://archive.org/details/sim_welsh-history-review-cylchgrawn-hanes-cymru_1997-06_18_3/page/474/mode/1up here.] Zacwill (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::So not Lloyd George and not from 1880. That editor really outdid themselves that day. Nice find, Zacwill. Annoyingly the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have the South Wales Daily News for the first six months of 1886 to double check. —Simon Harley (Talk). 19:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Neither does the National Library of Wales. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking that Robert Williams (archdeacon of Carmarthen) is the same Robert Williams mentioned in {{cite book|last=du Parcq|first=Herbert|author-link=Herbert du Parcq|title=Life of David Lloyd George|volume=I|year=1912|publisher=Caxton Publishing Company, Limited|location=London|page=32|chapter=III (1877-1884)|quote = Robert Williams, the pupil teacher who was Mr. Lloyd George's contemporary, is now Canon Williams, Residential Canon at St. David's and a leading light of the Church Defence Association}}? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think the answer is no: it looks like the two Robert Williamses appear together at the top of this page of [https://archive.org/details/oxfordmen188018900fostuoft/page/n465/mode/1up Oxford alumni]. The Llanystumdwy Williams studied theology, the future archdeacon studied history (that puzzle piece is confirmed in [https://archive.org/details/whos-who_1920/page/2764/mode/1up?q=%22Archdeacon+of+Carmarthen%22 Who's Who 1920]). If this is the same Robert Williams of Llanystumdwy, he must have been about 17 (to Lloyd George's 14) when he was recorded as off sick as du Parcq's book says.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looking in Who's Who I found the Canon Residentiary of St David's under [https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-194318 Camber-Williams, Rev. Robert], 1860-1924. Both he and the [https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-219239 Venerable Robert], 1863-1938, were examining chaplains to the Bishop of St David's. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::And I find in {{cite book|last=Spender|first=Harold|author-link=Harold Spender|title=The Prime Minister|year=1920|publisher=Hodder and Stoughton|location=London|page=16|chapter=I: Childhood}} mention of "two pupil-teachers who were a little older than the boys themselves. Both of these teachers were destined for the Church; one of them became a rector and another became a Canon of St. David's", Spender names them in a footnote as "The Rev. Owen Owens and Canon Camber-Williams of St. David's". DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nicolae Grigorescu - Portrait of Prince Ghica.jpg

I just uploaded this, and I'm hoping to be more confident on the identification of the person portrayed. The Museum of Art Collections in Bucharest identifies it as Potretul Beizadelei Ghica-Vodă, that is "Portrait of Beizadea (Prince) Ghica-Vodă". I can't neatly attach the name "Ghica-Vodă" to one member of the Ghica family, but it looks to me like Dimitrie Ghica, who would certainly have been prominent enough in the relevant period (he served as prime minister and in various other offices), and it looks like other pictures I've seen of him. Still, that's a bit weak for identification, especially because family members often resemble one another. What I'd really like to pin down is who was known as "Ghica-Vodă", which would probably clinch it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Jmabel}} It looks like "Ghica-Voda" is a branch of the Ghica family. There is a list [http://www.ghika.net/Index_18/ai_idx/idx_ghk.htm here] which may be of use. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 27 =

I cannot find sources saying that Wikipedia supports materialism, secularism, atheism, agnosticism, and liberal Christianity. Remember: I'm not saying that supporting them would be bad, just that it is a "bias", so will have to be included in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Because everyone can change the content, minimizing bias is inevitable, so open forums tend to be neutral. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::No they'd be a popularity contest of a systemic-biased sample of humans. Also truth is more important than a non-systemic biased sample of humans, a non-systemic biased sample of all humans once would've said A380s can't be invented and no sea'll ever be safe from pirates what are they wrong about now? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, it is true that many experts have said that the A380 could not be invented, for many reasons.  But the A380 was indeed invented. Both systematic and non-systemic bias can occur in any system, but if the system is open enough, it will correct itself. That's the beauty of open systems. Stanleykswong (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How many hundreds of thousands of years since the start of behaviorally modern humans (or even longer since the first time majority thought it was flat) did it take to correct "Earth is flat"? Earth could even really be flat & this is just a brain in a vat & if true there's no grand deterministic eschatological reason it'll ever be corrected and no such reason it won't. I don't believe that but if true it'd merely be a common metaphysics belief among the sims which will never have good evidence for or against. An asteroid could kill so many the majority will think Earth is flat after enough generations & another catastrophe (i.e. inbreeding extinction) could make that the final and most "advanced" position ever. Not everything works like math & physical science even without tech regressing i.e. there's no right answer to if women or men are clearly sexier or neither are or about equally sexy & at the same time only one right answer & everyone disagrees (and is thankful everyone disagrees if they happen to be straight) & there might never be over 50% agreement on one of those options. Majority can be wrong for extremely long & simultaneously right on many things and the minority is pulling their hair out thinking what the hell is wrong with you & they may or may not ever be the majority & questions like if "New Amsterdam" would be better with its prostitution laws or Old Amsterdam's or if you'd need an alternate timeline viewer to be sure are subjective & personal preference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it took hundreds of thousands of years for people to figure out that the Earth isn't flat.  The reasons are: first, people do not think it is important; second, people do not have enough knowledge to initiate and conduct discussions; third, there is no open forum for people to share knowledge, raise doubts and ask questions.

:::::Why were ancient Greek philosophers among the first to discover that the Earth wasn't flat?  Why not Asians? The reason is that ancient Greek philosophers were allowed to think and discuss openly, while ancient Asian philosophers did not have this kind of environment.

:::::I am not saying that open systems are perfect systems.  I'm just saying that open systems have a better chance of minimizing bias. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And who knows maybe eating meat will be seen as barbaric by most humans in the future or it'll be seen like today or the right of conquest will be more supported or an all vs. one war will literally regime change anyone who dares change the holy borders of 1398 BBY or living on planets will be a niche subculture or mandatory after the mardrive test catastrophe or everyone's tatooed if they want to not be a weirdo like some tribes or not if no non-Japanese survived the asteroid or everyone has guns cause hysteresis from the zombie war or guns are hunted down and destroyed by the superintelligent AI droids with only an average of 3 existing worldwide at any given time who's right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Throughout history, whether to eat meat has been a matter of affordability and personal choice. There is no right or wrong.  

:::::Thinking that people are barbaric when they eat meat is just a personal opinion.  As long as people who think this way do not affect others, they should be allowed to think this way.

:::::Of course, the above comments are based on the premise of an open society. Under a dictatorship, people eating meat or other things the dictator doesn't like may be seen as illegal, barbaric, enemies of the people, or whatever term the dictator wants to use. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Also majorities can change fairly quickly. Till the 1980s or 90s you could be forced to smoke secondhand on major U.S. airlines & subway trains which I see as barbaric cause I was born just too late to remember & in 2011 even smoking on outdoor parts of my city's subways, parks & beaches was banned never would've expected that to happen till it did. I was contemporaries of generations who thought smoking was as eternal as English Channel pirates seemed in 1630 till it wasn't (the English Channel & Mediterranean & wider parts of the Thames were hotbeds of piracy till as late as the 1830s for the Med). Maybe soon it'll be banned from sidewalks! Also I never would've predicted so much open sidewalk cannabis smoking & legal shops (till 2010s NYPD would bust smokers hiding inside with even 1 joint cause they smelled) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The "majority" cannot change quickly.  Building public consensus takes a long time.

:::::In the 1940s, scientists began to recognize the link between smoking and lung cancer.  Scientific studies in the 1940s and 1950s demonstrated this connection.

:::::However, it wasn’t until the 1990s that smoking was banned in public places, including airlines and subways.  It took half a century for public consensus to emerge. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That was lightning speed compared to how long it took "Earth is round" to poll 50.0000001% starting from Caveman Og or Eratosthenes. They saw the same lunar eclipses as everyone else. Polling isn't truth. Sometimes it makes accurate (thus very hard to profit from) prediction markets like NFL spreads, sometimes it makes irrational bubbles that don't recover for 25 years. Didn't the 40s studies have little effect cause they were associated with Nazis even a broken clock right twice a day? James I said smoking was harmefull to braine, dangerous to Lung & also feared witches. Anyway cyclamate began to be suspected of causing health problems in the late 1960s particularly after 1969 studies linked it to rat bladder cancer. Based on these findings USA FDA banned it 1969. The ozone hole was discovered '85 (published 5/16/85) Montreal Protocol signed 9/16/87 Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My point is that there is no comparison between the two things.  

:::::::Whether the Earth is round or not does not matter to most people, especially those who do not make a living from fishing or maritime transport. I was not surprised when my American colleagues told me earlier that some Americans still believe the Earth is flat. Even though scientific evidence has proven that the Earth is a sphere and orbits the Sun, they still have the right to believe that our planet is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth.  How they perceive reality does not affect anyone else, so they are completely free to perceive it that way.

:::::::However, the act of smoking does affect other people, and therefore, smokers should not be given the right to smoke in public places.  The harm of smoking affects everyone, but as long as it does not cause harm to others, it is also a personal choice for smokers to smoke in their own place. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

E.g., I have found https://www.worldreligionnews.com/wikipedia/wikipedia-and-religion-uncovering-the-dynamics-of-reliable-sources-and-digital-bias/ . But that isn't a good source for the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And https://www.worldreligionnews.com/wikipedia/wikipedia-bias-on-religion-creationism-vs-science-how-wikipedia-assumed-the-role-of-arbiter-of-faith/ is outright delusional. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Tgeorgescu Do you have a question? If you are looking to improve said article (with reliable sources, not just your opinion) the place to do so is on that article's talk page. We are not here to find sources that support your opinion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Flat earthers may say that Wikipedia is biased because it does not maintain an equilibrium between the two sides in this issue. But, actually, Wikipedia's stance represents its Neutral point of view policy. Two sides in a debate should not necessarily always be presented as being in equilibrium. The complaint more likely reveals a bias of the complainant.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

How common is a situation where someone commits a crime and gets arrested, the local district attorney or state AG is ready to prosecute, but the US DOJ also prosecutes the person so the state level ones don't bother? Asking because US presidential pardons are currently operating as a chaos monkey in the criminal justice system.[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/trump-pardon-paul-walczak-tax-crimes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KU8.sjc6.NKyPz9HyHmuD&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare][https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwynp1lw0l7o] So I'm wondering whether additional failover engineering at the state level in the early phases might have helped, and whether there is any known movement towards that now. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:AAE9:1B5:9F2C:B646 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know the direct answer to your question. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that some states have stronger protections against double jeopardy than the federal government does. The US Supreme Court has allowed federal prosecutions of the same conduct after state acquittals, which to me seems in direct contradiction to the plain language of the Double Jeopardy Clause, but their opinion counts and mine doesn't. But I think California, for example, does not allow state prosecutions of the same conduct after a federal acquittal. I could be wrong about that; I don't see it specifically in the article. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I hadn't thought about acquittals though I'll take your word about them. I was asking more about federal convictions where the POTUS pardons the person afterwards, but the rest of us would be better off if the person stayed in jail. Sometimes someone is convicted on both federal and state charges, so in case of a federal pardon, they are still not out of the woods. I'm wondering how often there is a federal prosecution but no state prosecution, because while state charges would probably have also stuck, the state prosecutors were satisfied leaving it to the feds. 2601:644:8581:75B0:AAE9:1B5:9F2C:B646 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So I talked about acquittals because they're sort of the clearest case, but double jeopardy is about more than just acquitted conduct or acquitted alleged conduct. It's also about conduct that results in a previous conviction. See peremptory plea for a discussion of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict; while they're not precisely the same thing, I generally put them in the same conceptual box.

:::If you're convicted and pardoned at the federal level, you definitely can't be tried again on the same facts at the federal level; that would be clear double jeopardy, in spite of the fact that you were never acquitted. The Double Jeopardy Clause doesn't say anything about the claims of separate jurisdictions; it just says "twice put in jeopardy" though it does continue "of life or limb" which is obviously a minority of cases. In any case I would expect that states that don't permit prosecution after a federal acquittal would also not permit it after a federal conviction. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Again I'm not really concerned with the question of double jeopardy. This is about the situation where a really bad person gets pardoned from federal prison due to, let's say, POTUS-level misjudgment. The idea is to prevent that by also having state charges. It's quite common for someone to be locked up on state and federal charges simultaneously so I presume that is legally legit. If someone is only there on federal charges, it's for one of two reasons: 1) there weren't usable state statutes that applied to that specific crime, or 2) there were state charges available, but the state prosecutors didn't bother because the feds were already taking care of it. So I'm wondering how often it is #2.

I'm not too worried about (and not supportive of) the idea of a state re-prosecuting someone after they get federally pardoned. I'm imagining instead that there is, say, a bank robbery that is both a state and federal crime, where the state prosecutors might in the past have said "let's not spend state resources charging this guy, because the feds are already nailing him anyway". They might now instead want to say "even post-conviction, federal charges are unreliable because of unpredictable pardons, so we better still prosecute at the state level just in case". This is in the "deciding what to do with the suspect" phase of the case, before any trials or convictions have actually happened. 2601:644:8581:75B0:AAE9:1B5:9F2C:B646 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Double jeopardy is kind of a key question here; you really can't avoid it. You say {{tq|It's quite common for someone to be locked up on state and federal charges simultaneously so I presume that is legally legit.}}, but this is a judge-made exception to the double-jeopardy rule, called "dual jurisdiction" or "dual sovereignty". I think it was created in response to Southern states protecting perpetrators of racial violence by giving them softball trials. Not all states followed suit in the reverse direction. This is essential to the question that you asked, whether you "want" to talk about it or not. --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Typically, when the feds wanted a way around double jeopardy after dubious acquittals in the white supremacist South, the key was to use a very different charge. "OK, you've been acquitted of killing him, but we can still go after you for violating his civil rights." - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: No, that in itself, in my understanding, doesn't get you around double jeopardy. Once someone has been tried once (a complete trial including a result and all appeals) for a given set of facts, you can't try them again in the same jurisdiction on the same facts, even if you come up with a different theory as to why it was illegal. They were relying on the "dual sovereignty" exception. --Trovatore (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I think the reason for the "civil rights" language is that the federal government doesn't usually have jurisdiction over one-on-one crime like murder. They needed something that would give them jurisdiction, so they used the violation of the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. This restriction has admittedly gotten thinner and thinner over the years; for Luigi Mangione they're relying on the fact that he (allegedly) crossed state lines to do the dastardly deed, which seems a bit weak to me. --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 28 =

File:The Battle of Ridgeway.jpg

What is the meaning of the colour inverted Union Jack in this depiction of the Battle of Ridgeway? 91.221.58.29 (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:It could be unintentional? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Right, it's chromolithograph, so they may have simply mixed up which region of the flag belonged on which color plate. --Amble (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That can't be the case, or the British-Canadian forces in the battle would also have blue, not the correct red, jackets of the 13th Battalion from Hamilton (the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto, also involved, had dark green uniforms).

:::Possibly this is not the Union Flag (aka "Jack"), but the Colours of one of those units at that date. (It resembles a Russian naval jack, presumably coincidentally.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::found an inconclusive reddit discussion of a substantially similar flag seen flown from a ship in Canaletto's "A View of Greenwich from the River", c. 1750. (at right here: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/canaletto-a-view-of-greenwich-from-the-river-l01926)

::::discussions on reddit tend toward the conclusion that it was an accurate depiction of an irregular version of the union jack, based on vague early definitions of the flag. i don't feel entirely convinced. 91.194.221.225 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::A printer's error seems the most likely by far, perhaps after a liquid lunch. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Many (most) streets have houses numbered with odds on one side and evens of the other, rather than simply consecutively. Why is this? When did this convention originate? Who gets to decide which side is numbered with evens and are there any guiding principles for this choice? Thanks. 2A00:23C7:533:3C01:E5C6:F19A:E5A4:6577 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:We have an article about House numbering, which may go some way to answering your questions. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:They don't have to renumber every time the street gets longer. In NYC they try to make the north and east sides odd & south and west sides even. North and east are the nominal trump cards in western culture (map up, orientation of churches, ad orientum, T-O map (orient means east), east longitudes are positive) so house number 1 (or [lowest cross street]-01 if Queens) is on the "right side of the father" since they don't start at zero like programmers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oh I didn't know. I will have a look. Thank you.

:::If, say, the street was initially built with 100 houses and one side was 1–50, the other side could be numbered either 51–100 or 100–51; the former would put 51 opposite 1 and 100 opposite 50, the latter would mean 51 was across the street from 50, but 100 was opposite 1: both could be confusing, although both schemes are sometimes used, particularly in shorter 'closes' which cannot be extended.

:::But what if the street was later lengthened? Both the arrangements above would force a discontinuity; 50 would be followed by 101 and 51/100 by some rather higher number. A yet later extension would create yet another discontinuity: the road I myself currently live in was built in several such stages as my town grew. To avoid such discontinuities, each new section would have to be given a different name, with numbers re-commencing from 1.

:::If instead numbers are odd on one side and even on the other (as in my road), the initial build will have 99 and 100 opposite each other at the furthest end, and newer houses can simply extend the scheme indefinitely, with n and n+1 always roughly opposite. {The poster formerly known as 87.781.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.154.147 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:From a previous discussion I recall that, in the UK, house numbers typically start at 1 for each unique street name. You geolocate to the UK so that's probably what you're most asking about, but as a matter of possible interest, it's quite different in most parts of the United States. Often you will have some fixed increment, typically 100, per "block", even though there aren't 100 houses in a block, so that it's easy to guess how many cross-streets you need to pass before you find the address you want. Also there's no guarantee that the numbers start with a low value like 100; it's quite common to have streets with only 4-digit house numbers, or even only 5-digit numbers in more urban areas. --Trovatore (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Then you have Manhattan where a non-renamed avenue starts at 11 where it'd be about 17311 or 21311 if it was 100 per block & Queens where non-renamed avenues+streets start at 147-05 2nd Avenue, 83-07 165th Avenue & 75-58 271st Street. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{hat|Hatting LTA + one good-faith reply to an old LTA comment.}}So what's the longest street? Ermine Street begins in London and runs all the way to York. In Western Australia (when I was there) Hay Street began at the Swan River and ran far out into the suburbs. The numbering is described as "unusual". The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 March 28#Pronunciation of 0 (zero). Some other comments along the way:

{{hab}}

= May 29 =