::From the subject's residential history only, in the absence of further hard data, the portrait ''could'' have been painted any time after 1811, when she was 39. (Posthumous portraits are sometimes painted, but I doubt this applies here.)
::From the subject's residential history only, in the absence of further hard data, the portrait ''could'' have been painted any time after 1811, when she was 39. (Posthumous portraits are sometimes painted, but I doubt this applies here.)
::Lambian's suggestion of "First half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century" conforms with the undisputable facts, but in any case, any revision of the wording would need to tale place on [[Wikimedia Commons|Commons]], not on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/2.125.73.196|2.125.73.196]] ([[User talk:2.125.73.196|talk]]) 20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
::Lambian's suggestion of "First half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century" conforms with the undisputable facts, but in any case, any revision of the wording would need to tale place on [[Wikimedia Commons|Commons]], not on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/2.125.73.196|2.125.73.196]] ([[User talk:2.125.73.196|talk]]) 20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
:The ermine-trimmed robe doesn't really tell anything about the date, but what can be seen of the white dress (a wide gently-curving neckline which is horizontal in the middle and slipping off the shoulders, also a wide upper sleeve) suggests the second half of the 1820s or the early 1830s (see [[:File:1829-Morning-Evening-Dresses-World-of-Fashion-May.jpg]]). [[User:Churchh|Churchh]] ([[User talk:Churchh|talk]]) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
== Meaning of disvicarage, etc. ==
== Meaning of disvicarage, etc. ==
Revision as of 21:45, 13 May 2021
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
If you are the kind of person who hears this and shudders at the thought that technology is destroying our way of life -- well, there is a long history of such thought. Aristotle had the same concern, and in ancient Rome, some technologies were outlawed [Link to worldlibrary.net] because of the expected job loss.
In Technological_unemployment, we've got In one instance, the introduction of a labor-saving invention was blocked, when Emperor Vespasian refused to allow a new method of low-cost transportation of heavy goods, saying "You must allow my poor hauliers to earn their bread." with the citation to book eight, chapt XVIII of the Twelve Caesars. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some historians have claimed that the important tendency was that Romans were not motivated to invent or put into use labor-saving devices because of the widespread use of slaves... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see in the Latin text (plebiculam pascere) how "hauliers" come into play. I think that plebicula is a variant spelling of plebecula, meaning "the plebs". Vespasian seems to say, rather dismissively, "No, thanks, let me feed the plebs", as if that is a more important business of his to attend to – and perhaps it was. Surely, the hauliers of the columns would have been slaves (who were not plebeians), not salaried workmen, so the notion of their being deprived of "earning their bread", an interpretation not supported by the text, does not make much sense, IMO. --Lambiam08:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The translation in the wiki article appears to be same as (blacklisted site to link to: uploads.worldlibrary.net/ uploads/pdf/ 20121106193837suetoniuspdf_pdf.pdf), which doesn’t say who the translator is. So far the other translation I can find is this one from Tufts University, which appears the same as this older book on Gutenberg. “Some one offering to convey some immense columns into the Capitol at a small expense by a mechanical contrivance, he rewarded him very handsomely for his invention, but would not accept his service, saying, "Suffer me to find maintenance for the poor people."” To me the original interpretation of keeping work for people to do still makes sense. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, I can think of no particular reason to assume that the hauliers involved in this task would necessarily have been slaves, but I'm far from being an expert on Ancient Rome. Care to explain your reasoning? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Imperial Rome, unskilled work was done mostly by slaves; see e.g. Maxey, Mima (1938). Occupations of the Lower Classes in Roman Society. University of Chicago Press. There were entrepreneurs who ran a rent-a-slave business; for a reasonable amount (there was considerable competition on this market) one could rent a substantial work force. While not discussed in sources I am aware of, the use of slaves must have been even more pronounced for dirty or backbreaking work; slaves could not refuse to do unpleasant work because it did not pay enough. The plebeian class (Roman citizens) and the slave class (non-citizens) were disjoint; one could not make a citizen a slave. The noun plēbēcula is a diminutive of plēbs with a denigrating connotation. It is not used in an endearing sense; it implies a patrician (the ruling noble class) looking down on the uncouth commoners. The verb pāscō is mainly used for feeding animals, as in letting them graze (whence pastor and pasture), although there is a figurative sense of "feasting" (whence repast). For providing sustenance to humans, the verb alō was more appropriate (whence alimentation and Alma Mater – the "Nourishing Mother"). Assuming that Vespesian had meant to say that he did not wish to deprive the column hauliers of their livelihood, the words used are an unlikely choice. Generous grain distributions as a form of public munificence were a daily business. In comparison, the effect of a labour-saving device for hauling some columns would have been negligible. One may seek other interpretations in the Emperor saying "Allow me to feed the lower class", but translators should not twist the words to give them meanings that are absent in the original text. --Lambiam10:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The blazon (in English) would start "Azure a [bird] Or . . ." (Blue background, a Gold [bird]), but I haven't been able to track it down in my own library or online. If I was forced to guess, I'd say a civic banner (i.e. of a town, city or district), European and possibly German, but I could be completely wrong.
The bird is a puzzle. It's not an eagle; it could be intended as a falcon, but they are most often (though not always) shown with one or two bells and/or jesses, and the attitude of the feet is odd. A hawk, merlin or gyrefalcon are other possibilities, but the crest on the head suggests something else is intended. It appears to be holding an olive branch, which heraldically is usually the prerogative of doves, but it's certainly not a dove. (Note that I'm talking about heraldic depictions and names, which are stylised and often depart rather far from nature.)
In Europe, crescents often have a crusading connection in their origins, and "Azure a crescent argent" were the arms of an English family called Lucy (of London, not the famous Warwickshire Lucys), but I doubt there's a connection here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stocktrain I'm coming up blank as well. Birds aren't uncommon on flags, but we're not talking about millions to sort through either; nothing is even close. As Bugs said, we may need to know more about where this was found to have a hope. Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's unfortunately a possibility that it's just something someone made up one day, perhaps for a pseudo-historical event like a Renaissance fair or SCA activity, or as as a clueless commercial undertaking. The latter unfortunately do occur: for example, some time in the 1980s the Guildhall in Winchester was externally refurbished, and the architect/builders responsible added to the 1893 west extension's north and west exterior a number of 'coats of arms', most of which were alien to local history, apparently fictional, and in many cases in breach of the Rule of tincture. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May 8
Juliana (the font)
One of my favourite fonts is called Linotype Juliana, by Sem L Hartz. Here is a sampler. I had a copy of the sampler saved on my hard disk.
Today I went looking for information about it, only to discover that the internet seems to have forgotten about its existence. I'm pretty certain there used to be a Wikipedia page, but that's vanished. More confusingly, if you do a Tineye search on that image, you get quite a few pages but almost all of them are now 404s. The only one that still exists is myfonts.com's page about Hartz, which shows a completely different font under "Juliana".
I don't believe in the Mandela effect, but I almost feel I've stumbled into one. Can anyone tell me what happened here? Marnanel (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your Juliana can be seen here and here. Just to confuse the matter even more, there is also a third font with the same name, shown here (top right column). Obviously a (too) popular font name. --T*U (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add: It may seem that Linotype has abandonded their original Juliana by Hartz and TM-ed the one you found, while the Hartz font (digitalised by David Berlow) is still alive at Font Bureau. --T*U (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Denominations
An article mentions "... Methodist, Baptist and Christian persuasions ...". I get the first two, but wheer exactly would I find the last one? Thought that was a more general concept. Any clarification would be appreciated. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G-41614. I'm not sure what you mean by "general concept" here, but it is true that Methodists and Baptists are Christians. It may be that the writer is slighting them by suggesting they are not proper Christians.--Shantavira|feed me08:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was also my initial thought, but it is strange that the omission is repeated twice in two succeeding paragraphs that are similar, but not identical: "Baptist, Methodist and Christian persuasions" in one and "Methodist, Baptist and Christian persuasions" in the other. Even in 1886, both Baptism and Methodism must have been seen as Christian. --T*U (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it would seem I have been just a bit too brief in my inquiry. The "article" in question is, as had been noticed, obviously, not a wp-article, but found here. I'm german, and my englisch is somewhat rusty, but I thought I somehow recalled having at some time or other heard or read mention a, for lack of better word, church, or community, that is not simply one of the christian churches, but actually called Christian church - not as in building, but as in group of people sharing the same parameters of faith. As the source is from the 19th century, perhaps that is a reason for the distinction. The matter of interest to me is how to interpret that in german, as I was writing a de:wp-article when I stumbled upon this issue. Since me, too, thought Methodists and Baptists are considered part of the Christian religions. If there's no other explanation, guess so far I'll simply ignore it. Or put in " ... and other christian denominations." Thank you all for your troubles so far. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One possible candidate would be Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), but I have problems accepting that they would be mentioned as just "... and Christian ...", as would be the problem for any other congregation using "Christian" as their main "definition". The construction "Methodist, Baptist and Christian" is odd and would have been odd even i 1886. Your solution "... and other Christian denominations" will be the safest solution, or even just "... and other denominations", since "Christian" would be implicitly assumed. --T*U (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Now I'd have to find out if the DoC was active in NH mid- to late 19th century. But since I'm not wirting a thesis, guess I'll just point out that the church building was open to all present christian denominations (assuming I got that term right), among other M/B. Thanks all for your troubles, --G-41614 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rudolf Hess, Carl Hess of Schleswig, a death in Devon, and a grave in Wales.
In the Welsh village of Michaelston-y-Fedw is a gravestone bearing the inscription "Erected by Carl Hess of Schleswig in Loving Memory of his wife Elizabeth Mackie Who Died at Bystock, Exmouth, Devon June 13th 1891 aged 35 years 'In Life beloved, in death never forgotten'". You can see a photograph of it here. Local folklore, and indeed newspapers and even this BBC blog, has Carl as the father of Rudolf Hess, of evil memory. Now our article on Rudolf says his father was one Johann Fritz Hess. Who was Carl Hess? Was he Johann Fritz? Is there some other connexion that has become garbled with time? And why, if Carl was from Schleswig and Elizabeth died in Devon, was she buried where Monmouthshire meets Glamorgan? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The easy bit is why she was buried in Wales; according to the Western Mail article that you have linked above, "Miss Elizabeth Mackie, born and bred in Michaelstone-y-Fedw, but of Scottish descent" and the journalist records meeting her siblings who still lived there in 1941. BTW, the suffix "y fedw" means "of the birch trees". [1]Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A confusing factor may be that Rudolf Hess (artist) – a completely different person of course, born 1903 and died 1986 in California – "married a Florence Louise Mackie in 1946 in Burlingame, California." According to the cited source, she was born 27 November 1921 in Berkley, California, but a family connection (or even two) is (are) possible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Rudolf’s grandfather, Johann Christian Hess, married Margaretha Bühler, the daughter of a Swiss consul, in 1861 in Trieste. After the birth of his father, Johann Fritz Hess, the family moved to Alexandria, Egypt. Johann Christian Hess founded the import company Heß & Co. which his son, Johann Fritz Hess, took over in 1888. Rudolf’s mother, Klara, was the daughter of Rudolf Münch, a textile industrialist and councillor of commerce from Hof, Upper Franconia... The family lived in a villa on the Egyptian coast near Alexandria, and visited Germany often from 1900, staying at their summer home in Reicholdsgrün (now part of Kirchenlamitz) in the Fichtel Mountains".[2]
Johann and Klara married on 25 February 1892 in Hof, Bavaria. [3]
So Rudolf's documented father was already running a business in Egypt at the time of the Exmouth wedding, and wouldn't have had much time for running a hotel in Hamburg either. I suspect the family in Wales put two and two together and made five; there was no way for anyone in Britain to contradict the story in the middle of a war. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It is possible that Carl Hess, the widower of Elizabeth Mackie, had a son Rudolf – a rather common name – and that Mr. Edward Mackie, the brother of Elizabeth, mistakenly identified the two Rudolfs speaking to the "Western Mail" reporter in 1941 after the spectacular solo flight of the Deputy Führer. He mentions a brother by the name Wilhelm; the Nazi Rudolf did have a brother, also a Nazi official, in the Nazi Party/Foreign Organization in Egypt, who, however, was named Alfred. Others copied the error without checking. --Lambiam20:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion may be because the (1-year term?) Chairman of the Anchor Society in 1898, and in 1909 possibly still the most recent (the article's text and its list of Chairmen seem at odds), was Herbert Ashman, previously the Liberal Councillor of [Bristol's] St Paul's ward from 1890 to 1900 and presumably still a senior figure in the local Liberals in 1909. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hot wings vs. Buffalo wings
I recently translated the Finnish article fi:SiipiWeikot into Siipiweikot. (The company itself spells its name with a lowercase w, I don't know where the Finnish Wikipedia got the uppercase W from.)
Anyway. On WikiMedia Commons, images of chicken wings of the type served at Siipiweikot fall into two categories: "Hot wings" and "Buffalo wings". I only know of one type of chicken wings served at Siipiweikot: chicken wings with the bone and the skin still attached, fried fully crispy, and served with a spicy chili sauce together with potato fries, carrot sticks and celery sticks. (By the way, I don't particularly like celery, but I love carrot. Why can't it just be carrot?)
So my question is, what is the difference between hot wings and Buffalo wings? What category should Siipiweikot products fall under? JIP | Talk23:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buffalo wings are a type of hot wings. Other types use different spice mixtures in the sauce. Your description sounds like traditional Buffalo wings. Assuming that you used "chili sauce" in the sense of a "sauce made from chili peppers". --Khajidha (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "hot wings" and "buffalo wings" are synonymous. In either case, for a menu item thus advertized, I expect a fairly fiery sauce, with no specific distinction between the two that I'm aware of. --Lambiam12:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are often used synonymously, but as our article states, buffalo wings are not breaded. I do see breaded wings sometimes branded as "buffalo", which is annoying and inaccurate, but there is supposed to be a distinction. Matt Deres (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody, including me. Buffalo wings are unbreaded; hot wings may be breaded or unbreaded. What bugs me is when breaded wings are called "buffalo". Matt Deres (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought you were saying that buffalo wings being unbreaded, was a distinction from hot wings. It seems what you're saying is that you agree there is no clear distinction between buffalo wings and hot wings and they're can generally be used as synonyms. Although buffalo wings can never be breaded but hot wings can be, so in some cases hot wings can be distinct from buffalo wings even if not generally. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of the restaurants I am familiar with have a selection of "hot wings" with "Buffalo" being only one of the sauce options available. And often one of the milder ones at that.--Khajidha (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buffalo wing sauce is just hot sauce with butter, also known as "butter hot" sauce. Because it includes butter, there's a limit as to how hot it can get and the cayenne-based sauce that goes into it is just nominally hot. It wasn't until I guess the 90s or so that it got wrapped up in the machismo thing where the wings are rendered increasingly inedible and called "suicide wings" as a kind of dare. Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True Buffalo wing sauce is specifically Frank's Red Hot sauce, that specific brand and type and no other, with melted butter. A kosher variety that uses milk-free margarine instead of butter (with no blue cheese dip on the side) has also long been available in Buffalo, so I’d call that authentic too. Hotter types made from more potent sauces aren’t authentic. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frank's is very common, but as noted at Frank's RedHot, the exact brand of hot sauce used by the Anchor Bar has been lost to history. To answer the original question, I would consider "hot wings" to be the larger category, of which "Buffalo wings" are a subcategory. As noted, Buffalo sauce is a specific preparation, and while there are many ways to make wings spicy, buffalo sauce is but one of them. --Jayron3213:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PROOF! Family planning#India But, why there is no section for Indonesia in the page of Family Planning?
I just to know about the implementation of family planning in Indonesia. Why India and Indonesia just totally different names?
I want see people to explain family planning in Indonesia.
if someone found the family planning in Indonesia please make an edit and add Indonesia in the regional variation of family planning.
We need an explanation for our country Indonesia family planning policy that makes the people happy.
There's no section for Indonesia because you haven't written it yet. We're all volunteers here, so it's up to whoever wants to enact change, which seems to be you. Maybe some of the material from the Indonesian Wikipedia could be used? Matt Deres (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presidential pins
I started with Joe Biden and checked a few predecessor's leadimages (presumably official portraits) to see which were wearing flag pins (as one does). The conclusion is that after W. it became illegal for a US president not to have one.
Harry S is wearing a pin with a five-pointed star inside an ouroboros (like this), which I think is almost certainly a masonic symbol: he was a senior freemason. I have asked a masonic friend for details. Marnanel (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answer from masonic friend: "I don't recognise it, I'm afraid, but the Americans have some funny ideas." Make of that what you will. :) Marnanel (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't really a secret. There's a painting, too
Now that is, quite obviously, some sort of ISIS symbol. Trumans pin may be a mark of their time-travelling unit. This has not yet been confirmed, but I'll ask Q to look into it. Also, your username has "lodge" in it, that's very suspicious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this ref [1] there is a mention that "At the First Congress of the Communist Parties of Lithuania and Belorussia (old occupation)73 which took place on October 1-3 [1918]". What exactly does "old occupation" refer to in this context? A specific area under German occupation? --Soman (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! In my snippet view that didn't appear. What would have been the Belorussian areas under German occupation in Oct 1918? Notably I find in another source regarding the same event that "The Communist Party of Lithuania and Belorussia was so called because it was active in several districts of Belorussia adjacent to Vilnius territory " --Soman (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
be.wiki article be:Камуністычная партыя Літвы і Заходняй Беларусі writes: "I з'езд КПЛіЗБ назваў партыю Кампартыяй Літвы і Беларусі першай акупацыі (куды адносілася тэрыторыя, захопленая немцамі ў 1915 па лініі Дзвінск — Нарач — Крэва — Навагрудак — Баранавічы — Пінск, г.зн. да наступлення немцаў у лютым 1918).", which google translates presents as "The First Congress of the [KPLiZB] called the party the Communist Party of Lithuania and Belarus of the first occupation (which included the territory occupied by the Germans in 1915 along the line Dvinsk - Naroch - Kreva - Novogrudok - Baranovichi - Pinsk, ie before the German offensive in February 1918)." --Soman (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of. It looks like the other parties in those cases obtained orders against the WMF in the English courts, which orders are unenforceable against the WMF where it's based (the US). So it's not "winning", but it's not really "losing" either, in any real sense. But that's just on a cursory look - I could be wrong. Proteus(Talk)15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theory of evil
Is there any name for Rousseaunian philosophy or theory holding that people aren't born evil, but acquire / become evil due to external factors (such as life hardships, bad influences, shortcomings, etc)? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope I'm posting this question in the right place. I wonder about the painting in the article of Nino, Princess of Mingrelia. A fashion analysis demonstrate that the painting is of a woman of the 1840s, since she is dressed in the 1840s fashion. However, Wikimedia commons claims that it was painted in the early 19th-century. But she is not wearing the fashion of the early 19th-century, she is dressed in the 1840s fashion, which did not exist before then. And if the painting was indeed made in the 1840s as the fashion of the painting did not exist before that, she woman is far to young to be Nino, who was in her 70s in the 1840s. There does not appear to be any sources fo the claim that the image depicts Nino. Since the chronology of the painting does not ad up, should it be removed?--Aciram (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some points:
(1) Who made this fashion analysis and where is a link to it?
(2) The term "early 19th century" is ambiguous; some people might mean by that "within the period 1800–1850, and my personal default would be the period 1800–1833. The Article claims it to date to "during her St. Petersburg years" which covers 1811–47.
(3) A garment or style that is "fashionable" in period X did not necessarily not exist before then, it may merely not have been fashionable. In this case the subject is wearing only 2 visible garments, an ermine-lined scarlet robe, appropriate for royalty and looking to me somewhat "timeless", and a fairly simple white dress. I lack the knowledge to date the latter, but I doubt that it couldn't have existed in, say, 1825 when the supposed subject would have been 53.
(4) Fashion, particularly before mass media, did not change in lockstep everywhere in the world. Our articles on fashion that you cite are doubtless not exhaustive, and the subject came from Georgia in extreme Eastern Europe, was in Saint Petersberg in Russia when (if) portrayed, and was born into royalty, all of which might result in fashion choices a little different from elsewhere.
(5) A painted portrait is not a photograph*. Painters, particularly of royalty, may wish (or be ordered) to portray the sitter flatteringly (so that they might appear younger), and may make classical or allegorical allusions by showing a non-contemporary or even imaginary dress style. (* Even photographs may be manipulated with lighting, filters and development techniques to make a sitter look rather different from their everyday appearance, but I digress.)
(6) Portraits are sometimes restored/touched up/altered some time after being painted – can we be sure this hasn't occurred here?
(7) You say "There does not appear to be any sources fo[r] the claim that the image depicts Nino." The Commons data does have a source link, though to a Georgian site which I cannot read, and moreover states that the painting is held in the Dadiani Palace Museum, Zugdidi, Georgia, who presumably would not have lent their imprimatur to an obviously erroneous item.
The Georgian website states that the back of the canvas provided informative details identifying the subject of the portrait as Nino Bagration-Dadiani. However, there is nothing there suggesting that the painting is specifically "early 19th century"; it is not clear where this assessment comes from. But in 1840 Nino reached the age of 68, and the woman in the portrait looks younger than that. Maybe her choice of dress while sitting for the portrait influenced the 1840s fashion; in general, the fashion of the commoners following that of royalty was more likely than royalty following the fashion of the commoners. "First half of the 19th century" is a less disputable dating. --Lambiam10:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly 87 and Lambian, it would be the fashion of the hairstyle that dates the picture. I do not know how to edit a picture but cannot that OR/unsourced "early 19th" be changed to "undated" until a source emerges? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what reliable source are you relying on for the dating of the hairstyle depicted, and why are we so fixated on 1840? We also have articles on the 1820s and the 1830s in Western fashion, but I daresay they also do not present the full gamut of hairsyles worn in those periods, and we cannot suppose that a particular individual under no pressure of conformity (being Royal) nevertheless conformed to a general fashion of the time. Further, I note that 1820s in Western fashion#Hairstyles and headgear begins "Early in the decade, hair was parted in the center front and styled into tight curls over the temples. As the decade progressed, these curls became more elaborate and expansive." This seems to me like a good description of the hairstyle in the portrait.
From the subject's residential history only, in the absence of further hard data, the portrait could have been painted any time after 1811, when she was 39. (Posthumous portraits are sometimes painted, but I doubt this applies here.)
Lambian's suggestion of "First half of the 19th century" conforms with the undisputable facts, but in any case, any revision of the wording would need to tale place on Commons, not on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ermine-trimmed robe doesn't really tell anything about the date, but what can be seen of the white dress (a wide gently-curving neckline which is horizontal in the middle and slipping off the shoulders, also a wide upper sleeve) suggests the second half of the 1820s or the early 1830s (see File:1829-Morning-Evening-Dresses-World-of-Fashion-May.jpg). Churchh (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Saussure mansion on the Rue de la CitéThe Saussure mansion in Creux de Genthod
Ferdinand de Saussure was born in Geneva, but the article doesn't give the exact address of where he was born and grew up, nor can I find this information with a google search. Can anyone find this information? (Lame puns on his name will be terminated with extreme prejudice.) --Viennese Waltz20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] You might try contacting one or more of the most obviously relevant of the 33 museums in Geneva to see if they know for sure. (It's not clear to me from the French Wikipedia entry linked by DuncanHill whether the de Saussure family acquired that building before or after Ferdinand's birth.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was born "in Geneva, probably in her [his mother's] mother-in-law’s apartment in the mansion on the Rue de la Cité", "the principal residence of Henri, Louise, and their children was the farm at La Charniaz, across the border in the Savoy, which in 1860 was annexed by France", "They would spend time at Creux de Genthod, especially in the summer, with their grandmother Fanny, uncle Théodore, and aunt Adèle, and more rarely in Geneva, where much of the family mansion continued to be rented out for income. Henri did, however, keep an office on the first floor, below his mother’s large apartment on the second". Later "the family’s life revolved around the two great houses built by their ancestor Lullin. The mansion in the Rue de la Cité was their residence from late October to early July, while the summer months were spent at the other mansion at Creux de Genthod on the north shore of Lake Geneva". From Joseph, John E. (2012). "Part I, Chapter 4: 1857–1873". Saussure. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780199695652. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the mortal remains of Ferdinand de Saussure were committed to Tomb 86 of Genthod cemetery, alongside his parents and other family members, including his uncle Théodore with his grand mayoral monument", op. cit. Part V, Chapter 19: THE END: 1911–1913. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't it odd? I've been looking for this poem for years, the last time took me down a byway in the course of which Antiquary identified the poem Masefield credited as being one of the first to move him. Before posting above I had another bash at Google, no luck. After posting I tried again and turned up this - from a few months after my last search, a presentation identifying the poem as being from the book more usually listed as The Wanderer of Liverpool. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very Masefield and if anything even more so Shute (the underlying sentiment anyway). It's not in Masefield's Collected Poems which came out in, I think, 1923, seven years before. I don't think it was ever in a book of verse. There are other poems in The Wanderer of Liverpool too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article (in Russian), the Litbel constitution was never approved, so that the status of the coat of arms as designed remained that of a draft. Nevertheless, the article states, the official coat of arms of the BSSR was – according to "the scientific literature" – the spitting image of its unofficial predecessor, the only difference being that the slogan ("Workers of all countries, unite!"), originally only in Belarusian, was additionally presented in Lithuanian, Polish, Hebrew (sic) and Russian. The author further writes that he has an imprint of the seal of Litbel's Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counter-Revolution and Profiteering, showing the "lost seal", but with a grammatically incorrect slogan. (The article does not further identify the error, but I think the image shown here is that imprint, with a slogan I cannot make out, but apparently three words instead of the four of Пралетарыі ўсіх краін яднайцеся.) --Lambiam11:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May 13
Monarch or consort of a monarch?
Queen Sisowath Kossamak of Cambodia was a queen consort by marriage to a King of Cambodia, but was she also a monarch? Her article is a bit confusing, because it is contradictive: on one hand, it explicitly say she was not a ruling monarch since her son refused her succeeding to the throne, and she is only a queen consort in the majority of the formatting; but one the other hand, she is called a monarch in some of the formatting of the article. What is correct?--Aciram (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a question that is almost impossible to answer, at least in a few sentences. It would literally need a book. The backdrop is the Indochina crisis and war, and the centerpiece of the happenings is her son Norodom Sihanouk or Prince Sihanouk or King Sihanouk (pick your choice). For seven decades, in his different roles as king, abdicated king, prince, prime minister, unspecified head of state, even as abdicated and retired, it was around him everything circled, even when he was not in any position. As long as his mother was alive, she had a formal position (and possibly even some influence), but to pin it down to an exact answer to your question, is more or less impossible. Was she a ruling monarch? Yes and no! Was she just a queen consort? Yes and no. Hence the ambiguity of the article. --T*U (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, though, a monarch is reserved for someone with the constitutional right to rule as such; there have been powerful queen consorts and queen mothers who ruled their country but were not considered monarchs because the were in countries that did not legally recognize them as such. I'm thinking of people like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Empress Matilda and Catherine De Medici and the like, all of whom at various times held the power of a monarch, but could not be named a monarch for various complex reasons. --Jayron3214:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how this can be a difficult question to such a degree. Of course, she was a royal person regardless if she was a queen consort or a queen regnant, and she had the title queen. But that is not the issue. I do know the difference between a ruling monarch and other royal people. Why should this be a complicated definition? All monarchies have lists of their monarchs: France has it, England has it, Sweden has it, and the lists are of course separate for people like Elizabeth I of England and Catherine of Aragon: both of them were royals, but one of them was a monarch, and the other was just married to a monarch. Unless there is a complete different definition of monarchs in Cambodia, I cannot see how this can be different. My question is very simple: was she a ruling monarch like Elizabeth I of England, or was she just married to a monarch and the mother of a monarch, like Catherine of Aragon? This is not really a question of power, de jure power or de facto power, only of a formal definition. As far as I understand it, Shihanouk was a monarch in 1960-1970 as well, he just didn't call himself by the title king in that period.--Aciram (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the article never calls her a monarch. It only says that she was "neither a monarch nor politically influential" and later "There were suggestions of changing the constitution to allow for Kossamak to succeed as queen regnant and monarch in her own name, but the royal council was unwilling to allow it." Nowhere else does it suggest she was a monarch herself. --Jayron3217:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, she is named as monarch in the infoboxes on the articles for her husband (as successor) and her son (as monarch 1960-70). Norodom Sihanouk, on the other hand, was not a monarch from 1960 to 1970, but he was still (and officially) "head of state", titulated as "Prince" (but I am not sure if that was official). In the List of heads of state of Cambodia article, they have put in both, just to be on the safe side. This is simply a case where our usual categories do not fit very well, if at all. --T*U (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Infoboxes can be the suck when it comes to things like this, I honestly rarely look at them myself and am constantly surprised by how bad a tool they can be when they are pressed into articles where they fail to capture the nuance of a situation. It's impossible to create a field in an infobox that adequately deals with every possible sui generis situation, and so you get stuff like this. I'm not sure how to resolve this. --Jayron3218:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True! Infoboxes are made for presenting things in black and white, but the real world contains lots and lots of different colours and any number of shades of grey (I did not link that...). --T*U (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You (Aciram) appear to assume that there is an unambiguous and universally agreed definition of the term monarch. However, that is a misconception. Webster's 1828 dictionary already starts with two definitions:
The prince or ruler of a nation, who exercises all the powers of government without control, or who is vested with absolute sovereign power; an emperor, king or prince invested with an unlimited power. This is the strict sense of the word.
A king or prince, the supreme magistrate of a nation, whose powers are in some respects limited by the constitution of the government. Thus we call the king of Great Britain a monarch although he can make no law without the consent of parliament.
By this definition, the consort of a monarch is not also a monarch. Merriam—Webster simplifies this to:
a: a sovereign ruler
b: a constitutional king or queen
So then the consort of monarch can after all be a monarch, depending on their title. However, the Emperor of Japan is neither a sovereign ruler nor a king or queen; are they not a monarch? Oxford Dictionaries has: "A sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor." Since they define sovereign as: "Possessing supreme or ultimate power", none of the European kings or queens is a monarch, according to this definition. But Collins reinstates them: "The monarch of a country is the king, queen, emperor, or empress." --Lambiam18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fish and chips in Mexico?
Fish and chips?
This image is on WikiMedia Commons in the category "Fish and chips in Mexico". Is this really fish and chips? I see fish, and I see chips, in the picture, but fish and chips is the name of a specific dish in British cuisine, not just anything containing fish and containing chips. JIP | Talk13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say. It looks to me like someone read about fish and chips but had never had it or seen it, and then recreated it just from a vague description of what it was. Which is not to say that, at this restaurant in this locality, this dish wasn't called fish and chips. This sort of thing happens a lot, where two very different dishes use the same word, through accidents of history, or where a hyper-local dish is something totally different than what you expect, based on the name. As far as I know, fish and chips in the British sense is not part of Mexican cuisine (though, in the more cosmopolitan areas of Mexico, you'd probably find the real thing, in the same way that you can get tacos in London), though the style of fish shown in the image likely is. --Jayron3213:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chips are in cups behind the salsa. But, there is no such thing as "fish and chips" in Mexico. Obviously, those are English words, not adopted in Mexico. Second, "chips" are called "papas fritas" regardless if you are using the American or British definition of a "chip." So, that is "pescado y papas fritas." If you ask me, it is a picture of an average "cenas para compartir." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to open this whole can of worms, but someone in Britain ordering chips would not expect those. Those ordering fries would. Fgf10 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The file was uploaded to wikitravel and added to the page Patzcuaro 14 years ago by a user who ceased to be active even before the English-language wikitravel content was forked over to wikivoyage. The image was added to a section starting "Typical of the region are:"; assuming that "fish and chips" is not typical of the surroundings of Lake Pátzcuaro – something I am inclined to believe without further examination – the image caption ("Patzcuaro Fish and Chips") and description ("Fish and Chips, Patzcuaro, Mex.") are not optimal. In the fourteen years since, there has been no content change; the image is now on the page Patzcuaro on wikivoyage with the same caption as in 2007. The text in that section lists as one of the foods that are typical of the region: "Pescado blanco: white fish from Lake Patzcuaro, prepared to order". Assuming this is correct (and I see no reason to doubt this), a better caption and description is: "Pescado blanco from Lake Pátzcuaro". It should also be reassigned on Commons to Category:Cuisine of Michoacán and perhaps also Category:French fries in Mexico. --Lambiam17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, I was surprised to read the claim that "there is no such thing as fish and chips in Mexico". I feel sure, even having never visited the place, that Mexicans eat fish and chips. They certainly eat fish, they certainly eat chips, so it seems more than reasonable to assume that sometimes they eat both together. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly fish, and it's certainly chips, it's just not "fish and chips". That's exactly what I was thinking as well. So the only thing wrong with the picture is that it's misnamed and miscategorised, it should not be under the category "Fish and chips in Mexico". JIP | Talk18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The real fish-and-chips, or a close equivalent, is fairly common in America - battered fish filets and what we might call "steak fries". That rather gross-looking Mexican dish ain't it. But I wonder what the Spanish for lutefisk would be. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
,_with..._-_NARA_-_200176.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
