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.
I am editing Hurricane Francine and I came across a Mexican organizations known as plans (Tamaulipas and DN-III). I am not sure what they are and I don't know how to research it as I do not speak Spanish (especially not Mexican Spanish). ✶Quxyz✶00:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the subject line is for specifically Tamaulipas was because I changed the focus of the topic of this request midway through upon realizing the DN-III wikilink goes to DN-III-E which I am not sure is the same. ✶Quxyz✶00:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the earliest known depiction or attestation of Medusa (or any other Gorgon) being described as having a snake's body from the waist or hips down? I remember being told by someone at a younger age that sometime after the Roman Republic's era was possibly the first time that Medusa with a snake body was first told, but that depiction remained an uncommon thing until Ray Harryhausen's 1981 film Clash of the Titans permanently cemented the "snake-lower-half" look over the "ugly monstrous woman" look as the default imagery that comes to mind in modern popular culture whenever someone thinks of the names "Medusa" or "Gorgon". I would like to know if there is any merit to this claim; was it invented later-but still long ago such as in Renaissance or Early Modern times, or was it purely an invention by Harryhausen that everyone just latched onto?
And before anyone brings it up, yes, I am aware that some of the oldest known physical descriptions of Medusa were inconsistent between writers of antiquity, with the most descriptive being that of a hideously ugly woman with brass hands, brass or golden wings, boar tusks, writhing snakes for hair, and a stretched tongue, as depicted on surviving pottery and atop the temple to Artemis at Corcyra. I also understand that 3500-or-so years of orally passing down the same tale is bound to create some changes and mutations to the original telling along the way; for example, the hideous monster look started to be shed away in favour of just being a young woman who happens to have living snakes for hair sometime during the Renaissance.
Again, what I am asking for is the earliest known or surviving Medusa description that has her with a snake body with snake-hair, as is common in modern culture now, rather than as just an ugly woman with snake-hair. 72.234.12.37 (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting together an article for Peace Day 1919 on 19 July of that year, which was celebrated in London with a large military parade, sometimes described as "the London Victory Parade". I am having trouble finding the exact route of the parade. I know that the saluting base was outside Buckingham Palace and that the route included Lutyen's temporary Centaph in Whitehall. In Category:1919 London Victory Parade [1], there are photos of a rehearsal marching from Buckingham Palace to the Tower of London and other photos of troops and tanks crossing Westminster Bridge. Any further help would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 3 of the Daily Mirror of 17 July 1919 has: "The line of route is:- From Kensington Gardens by way of South Carriage Road (Hyde Park), Albert Gate, Knights- bridge, Sloane-street, Pont-street, Chesham-place, Belgrave-square South, Upper and Lower Belgrave-streets, Buckingham Palace-road, Victoria- street, Vauxhall Bridge-road, Vauxhall Bridge, Upper Kennington-lane, Kennington-road, Lambeth road, Westminster Bridge, Bridge-street, Parliament-street, Whitehall, Charing Cross, Admiralty Arch, The Mall, Constitution Hill, Hyde Park- corner, Apsley Gate, Hyde Park to Kensington Gardens." - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 16 of The Times for the date of the parade has a map and anticipated timings for each location. These should be available from newspapers.com via WP:TWL - Dumelow (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be her "ratification dress" referred to in the article? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any other images of it, though it was said to be sapphire blue rather than white. Shantavira|feed me16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During women's suffrage demonstrations, women often wore white dresses. It isn't likely a special type of dress. It is white, which is a symbolism they wanted. You can find many images of women's suffrage marches where nearly all of the women are wearing white dresses. This document begins with another view of the march where you can see many other women dressed in white. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The woman on the right is wearing a cape with a flag design below the left shoulder, but what's underneath the cape seems to be an ordinary semi-formal 1917 white dress, as far as can be seen... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just curious: how many parties split from Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) during their term from 2001 to 2006? So far, I know that there were two: Liberal Democratic Party lead by Oli Ahmed and Bikolpodhara party lead by Dr. badrozzoha or what ever his name was. 2607:FEA8:55E2:8B00:49D0:D87A:E12A:81A2 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Falkland Islands pound mentions they use their own currency there, but scotland technically has its own too but they use regular GBP. Can brits use a GBP card without currency conversion (like scotland)?
I understand the unlikelihood of people having been there, but was curious. The same would go for the dutch visiting the carib islands. St Maarten accepts ECD, but I dunno if the southern ones use euros alone? Sportsnut24 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland does not technically have its own currency. Some Scottish banks issue their own notes, which are fully backed by the Bank of England. You can use GBP in the Falklands. Different parts of the Dutch Caribbean use the Netherlands Antillean guilder and the US Dollar, although it is likely many places will accept euros. CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know they do in some other UK territories, but always best to check directly with your bank. More importantly, if someone gets Falkland Islands cash, they shouldn't expect it to be useful in the UK. CMD (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
32 years ago when I went to Gibraltar, I could spend my British pounds all right, but when I then withdrew from an ATM it dispensed Gibraltar pounds, which were worth about 10% less when exchanged at a bank in England. --142.112.148.3 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many of these are there? There's the famous Dendera one, there's a recently re-uncovered one in Esna that's rather -- shall we say very not traditional-formal -- there's one forgotten almost as soon as Petrie illustrated it in Athribis, and there's the pictured one, Belzoni's from Thebes. Which I'm not immediately sure if it is a Zodiac. I'd like there to be a page on these, but I don't know if there are synthetic or contextualizing sources on them like there are few but easily available for Zodiac synagogue mosaic.
Temerarius (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's something I'm trying to figure out. And in Dendera's case the dating was so contentious, apparently, that a whole "affair" was declared about it. Baron G Cuvier's 1831 account there mentions the possibility of Ense being a "wholly Mesopotamian zodiac" if that's not a self-contradiction. I'd thought the temple had only been found for the first time recently. You can see some pictures here. https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/491999.aspx You can see the artist was familiar with Egyptian formalism but not beholden to it, they're careful yet cartoonish, literate but not respectful of hieroglyphs, not even bothering to put them on a grid or in relief. It's like they wanted the paint to do all the work for them, perhaps a painter before a carver. The simplicity of their smiles make them look child-made. In other words, the oddness makes it seem unquestionably late. Ptolemaic weirdness perhaps. If Mesopotamia inspired the content, it didn't influence the style. Athribis is more pleasant; naive but native.
The white black dots? Those are sun-disks, but the closest article I could find is solar symbol. [Edit: maybe Eye of Ra.] The slightly different one on the right is between cow horns and belongs to Hathor, or maybe Isis. Of course Ra is depicted with a sun on his head, but here it seems every god gets a sun-disk, maybe because the date is late and Ra#worship has increased? This is from the Tomb of Seti I, and the figures are made of gold. I guess the nine on the right are the Ennead? Not sure what happened to Osiris, in that case, and I don't know about the eleven on the left but I can identify Thoth (by the beak).
No, by "black dots" I mean black black dots, "black" as in "the colour black", a colour that results from the absence of light, like the colour of this dot: ⬤. Most figures on the bottom line, especially in the left half, display eight or more black dots, in many cases one on each of their shoulders, one on each of their wrists, one on each of their ankles, and two on the bottom edges of their skirts. --Lambiam22:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean the black black dots. I missed those. I wonder what they are? In photographs they're brown, the same as the paint used for most of the lines on the figures. Obvious guess: stars? But that's a terrible guess, considering how many are lined up in neat rows. However ... the bull apparently represents the Big Dipper, and if we allow that the nameless man holding the chains is part of it, he has four dots in an oblong, which seem to match up. Card Zero (talk)08:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the red brown black black dots. Might be stars, just have to count them. If not, they're probably structural not decorative inlay points, if the figures were separate material ("made of gold".) Not saying I've seen an example like that before though.
It also says they're a Greek period thing. So I guess these older "astronomical ceilings" don't count, despite being constellations, and despite the zodiacs being mostly on ceilings or inside coffin lids. Define zodiac, I don't know, I guess it has to be an approximation to the familiar set of constellations and not some earlier set. Card Zero (talk)08:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what exactly counts as a Zodiac and are they definitionally Greek-derived are questions that come up. I'm gonna reread S Langdon's "Babylonian menologies and Semitic calendars" to see how specifically he uses the word. https://archive.org/details/babylonianmenolo0000step That's a good source that collects many deeply intriguing details and connections. Of course, as any work highly synthetic it requires a piecemeal not wholesale comprehension.
Searching the tomb name gives the article Tomb of Seti I, and Commons has the color photo which says that the dots are painted red and are the actual stars in the (painted) constellations. (I had initially thought they'd be for inlays as well.) SamuelRiv (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long post that was a bit hard to follow but didn't immediately look like trolling to me, what was the matter with it? Was that a known troll?
Referred to in Poems (1894), at that page and the next, as an easily recognisable event. I assume it's some kind of crop failure, but I haven't been able to find anything about that (all sites in a quick search quote from the book). Any ideas? — Alien 3 3 315:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Belgian Nouvelle Biographie Nationale says "morte en Allemagne après 1531" [died in Germany after 1531].[1]
Deutsche Biographie's article on Maximilian I says she died in 1525,[2]
Some German sources say she died in 1537 in Liège, e.g. "nach dem Tod von Ludwig Helferich zog die Witwe in die Niederlande, nach Lüttich, zu ihrem Bruder Georg von Österreich, Fürstbischof von Lüttich (Georg/Joris war der illegitime Sohn von Kaiser Maximilian I. und Margareta von Edelsheim), starb dort 1537" [After the death of Ludwig Helferich, the widow moved to the Netherlands, to Liège, to her brother George of Austria, Prince-Bishop of Liège (Georg/Joris was the illegitimate son of Emperor Maximilian I and Margareta of Edelsheim), died there in 1537.][3] "Nach 1515 heiratete Graf Ludwig von Helfenstein , der 1525 in Weinsberg ermordet wurde , Maximilians ältestes uneheliches Kind Mar- garethe ( geb. 1480 , gest . 1537 Lüttich )" [After 1515, Count Ludwig von Helfenstein, who was murdered in Weinsberg in 1525, married Maximilian's eldest illegitimate child, Margarethe (born 1480, died 1537 Liège)][4] Oddly George of Austria became Prince-bishop of Liège in 1544.
References
^Coenen, Daniel (1999). "de Helfenstein, Marguerite". Nouvelle Biographie Nationale – Volume 5 [Margarethe von Helfenstein] (PDF) (in French). Royal Academy of Science, Letters and Fine Arts of Belgium. pp. 92–93.
^"Maximilian I". Deutsche Biographie (in German). Retrieved 23 September 2024.
There is a letter from Liliuokalani to Queen Victoria dated to January 31, 1893. I’ve found the return letter from Victoria but not the one sent by Liliuokalani. The citation in this source: Great Britain and the Hawaiian Revolution and Republic, 1893-1898, cites it to “Enclosure in Wodehouse, despatch to Rosebery, 1 Feb. 1893, FO 534/59” and quotes one line, “to avoid violence and bloodshed, and damage to my subjects”. This one gives another snippet from the letter: “friendly intercession and mediation“. Can someone help me find this letter in its entirety? KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://postimg.cc/9DPF5fd5 This coin reads clearly enough IMP GORDIANUS PIUS, then immediately goes into another script that looks kind of Semitic, but I can't make sense out of it. Any ideas? If you can't read that, I can upload the short video clip where it's more legible--but where? The site where I uplaoded the image doesn't take videos.
Temerarius (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found numerous examples of Gordian III coins inscribed with IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG and the letters on this one, assuming it is but one script, are perhaps too worn to make out properly. Modocc (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God, how strange! It does say FEL AUG. But it's copied so poorly it's like just the last bits were done by an illiterate. It's a different die from that gold one. The engraver seems to be splitting the difference at confusion over whether the bit under the P is headband, radial, or knot.
Its quite possible that it was indeed done by an illiterate. As the Roman Empire declined, new coins minted in outlying portions of it under semi- or entirely autonomous local rulers naturally tried to copy older coins, but the engravers were sometimes not literate and had little idea of the 'correct' (letter) forms within the designs they were copying, and sometimes didn't fully understand what the 'pictures' represented (or lacked the skill to reproduce them well) so in time copies of copies of copies could degenerate into almost abstract and unrecognisable forms. This kind of 'devolution' can be seen both post-Roman coins and also coins from other cultures in Europe.
From Offa of Mercia#Coinage: There are also surviving gold coins from Offa's reign. One is a copy of an Abbasid dinar struck in 774 by Caliph Al-Mansur,[117] with "Offa Rex" centred on the reverse. It is clear that the moneyer had no understanding of Arabic as the Arabic text contains many errors. Also local copies of Spanish dollars or thalers are probably done by people who did not understand the originals. --Error (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know where this originated? The hero and villain face each other with swords from a few meters apart. Then they both run towards each other and strike at the same time with their swords. They run past each other and there is a moment of silence where it is unclear what happened. Then the bad guy starts spurting blood and falls over dead. This is a recent example from a movie I saw tonight, but there have been many more. I think it's quite common in anime. 146.200.126.178 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you may be correct, but I did think it was a trope from Japanese cinema, perhaps as old as you said. I've definitely seen it in Japanese movies and anime over the years, but my memory fails me now. In Kill Bill, Beatrix kills O-Ren in this manner (she slices off the top of her head after a duel) - and I know Tarantino made his film as a homage to Japanese samurai movies. 146.200.126.178 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan as well I would expect it to go back to stage combat and through silent movies, although in early Japanese cinema the hero was more likely to fight against a large group of enemies at once. Off the top of my head there is a prominent example in one of Seiji Miyaguchi's scenes in Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954, short cut here). Dekimasuよ!02:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic perhaps, but the Seagal scene is choreographed really badly, isn't it? At 1:35 we see Seagal from the perspective of the person he is fighting, swinging directly across from the left side of the screen. Seagal's sword jumps from a "down" position to an "up" position at 1:37 (with no blood on the sword). At 1:38 we appear to see Seagal swing the sword directly downward, but by this point the person Seagal's fighting is bleeding from the wrong side, apparently without his shirt being cut. At 1:45 Seagal's sword suddenly has blood dripping from it in massive amounts. Based on the character movements, the person Seagal was fighting against never even swung his sword, simply running straight past—although his arm also jumps from a "down" position to an "up" position at 1:38. At 2:17, the opponent falls dead with his face to the right. At 2:19, his face is to the left. Dekimasuよ!02:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The running towards each other is perhaps most famously (influentially) done in Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, in one of the early "recruitment" scenes. It's a samurai movie trope (it may predate it or be used in other genres, I don't know, but everyone knows Kurosawa), and it looks like in the clip they're recreating a number of the shot setups of Kurosawa.
There are several other stage combat tropes being done there, which are quite out of place (even for stage combat purposes). There usually has to be a reason for doing things, in a martial art, a sport, or in stage combat for theater. So randomly switching between different (better) films' of different genres' fight scene styles in the middle of a few minutes, if not a parody (and with Steven Seagal, who can know?) is rather jarring to anyone. That's why you saw it and thought to yourself, "something's very wrong". SamuelRiv (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the "silence" bit -- one thing I've noticed about stage combat (I've only done sport and martial arts, but this is from friends and teachers who did theater and some online info) is that a lot of form follows function as an excuse to talk. So in sword fights, the actors will find moments to get up real close and start shouting in each others' faces (The Force Awakens's final fight actually did this pretty decently), or else take a moment to stand apart and taunt each other (Empire Strikes Back did this extremely well). It's when a sword fight happens in complete silence, where the actors don't talk even when the trope would suggest they should, that the audience is signalled that this is beyond intense. Imo a perfect execution of this was in Rob Roy (1995 film), with the final scene being set up for the entire film. (Without that real emotional narrative buildup however, or some great investment where you think anything can happen (like sports), a silent fight scene in a film just gets boring.) (Addendum: this applies to stage and film combat. In sports and modern martial arts, none of that happens (except for weird artifacts of rules of sport fencing). As for a "real life swordfight", which people are asked about sometimes, nobody has been in one for generations, and a lot of the reconstruction is incomplete.) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Real life sword fight. A version of this video (warning, violence - no one died, both idiots got arrested) went viral a few years ago and people were saying that this is probably the first real sword fight caught on video. Iloveparrots (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If what is generally described as "good” art tends to be unconventional, which may also be described as original or new, which I personally believe is true, how does it avoid becoming conventional over time? Does art need to be in constant flux, changing its form in immeasurable ways, to stay one step ahead of convention? Is that which is conventional the enemy of art, or can it coexist and thrive alongside it? Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that art should be original and therefore at least somewhat unconventional is relatively recent. Before the arrival of Modernism one century ago, Western art was governed by an aesthetic ideal of "beauty" that every art theorist defined in their own way. Innovations were valued only insofar as they brought the art closer to the unattainable ideal.
Just as fads in fashion are driven by a small group of fashion designers and critics, the notion of what is "good" (read, between the lines, "high-priced") art is also subject to fads driven by a small incrowd in the art world. People in this circle are keen to "discover" an unknown artist with a fresh, new, original, inspiring approach, preferably an artist in a small group of like-minded artists who are somewhat of a bunch of rebels, and to promote them – ignoring scores of other suffering artists with equally fresh, new, original and inspiring approaches. If this succeeds and the new star in the firmament shines bright and fetches high prices for their work, others jump on the bandwagon, and what once was original becomes unsellable imitation. It is time for the discovery of the next unknown artist with a fresh, new, original, inspiring approach. --Lambiam14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The explanation could explain only the masculine grammatical gender (víkingr) and not the feminine (víking); the masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around." I'm confused about this sentence. Can someone please explain? I can see both words víkingr and víking being derived from the word "víkin". Why the derivation only works on the masculine form? Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1850:9245:B082:62CE (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why the masculine form can be derived from the feminine form but not the other way around? I can easily imagine that víkingr and víking can both be derived from each other. I mean it makes sense in my head. What am I missing here? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1850:9245:B082:62CE (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, have you read the reference for the sentence? It is fairly long and technical.
IP editor, I think that Heide and his sources are arguing that there are examples of masculine words like víkingr being derived from feminine words like viking (according to researchers in Old Norse), but not the other way round. Three key quotes are on page 43 Askeberg says: "I do not know any example of a masculine ing-derivation having given origin to a feminine nomen actionis that expresses the person’s action, and such a formation seems unreasonable. A hildingr m. 'king' can not be supposed to have given origin to a *hilding f. 'the quality of being a king' etc" on page 44 Askeberg points out that deverbative ing-derivations are considered younger than the word víkingr, and that it is unlikely that feminine verbal abstracts in so early times could be formed from strong verbs, like víka. and 45 On the other hand, a masculine víkingr 'sea warrior' could well be derived from a feminine víking denoting an activity. Old Norse parallels to such a development would be vellingr m. 'pottage' from *velling f. 'boiling'; geldingr m. 'a castrated ox or ram' from gelding f. 'castration'; [etc.].TSventon (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not know any example of a masculine ing-derivation having given origin to a feminine nomen actionis that expresses the person’s action" -> if I understand this correctly, this is saying that there is no example of a masculine noun having origin from a feminine verbal noun. This contradicts your claim above. I'm really confused now. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E1D5:4325:36B7:C2A5 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently reading Frankenstein for the first time (some of you might twig why).
The section (Vol. I, Chapter VII) where Justine is being tried for murder includes a reference to ballots: The ballots had been thrown; they were all black, and Justine was condemned. A footnote describes these ballots as "small balls used for secret voting". I'd love to hear more about this system. As an Aussie, I'm proud our name is sometimes attached to the secret ballot used for electing members of legislatures, and that result figures prominently in the searches I've done. Include "black" or "white" in the search terms, and I get lots of hits dealing with race as a factor in determining voter eligibility. Include "jury", and I get lots of hits for systems of choosing jurors. But nothing comes up for its use by juries themselves in criminal trials.
Our secret ballot article makes no reference to this. If Shelley's reference is historically accurate, it would considerably predate its use for electing politicians, and that's something we should definitely include in our article(s). The novel is set mainly in Switzerland, so perhaps this system did not obtain anywhere else. But then, how did an 18-year-old English girl get to know about it? And why would it be necessary anyway, since juries do their deliberations in secret. Or maybe that was different in some places at some times. Or maybe it was a panel of judges, rather than a jury in the 12 Angry Men sense.
"[H]ow did an 18-year-old English girl get to know about it?" She (with Percy Shelley) spent the Summer of 1816 staying with Lord Byron in Geneva, where she got the idea for the work and began writing it. Presumably she, well educated by her father William Godwin, was intellectually curious and was able to learn something about the legal system of the country she was living in. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing strange going on at all, there was a "no consensus" AfD, the article was renamed, and then there was an AfD cloesed as delete. It has since been recreated repeatedly and speedily deleted as "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". See the logs here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need someone to find me a source cus i cant find any
i need sources on the civil parish abolishment of eastcotts cus im tryna update the cardington page cus it says the raf is in the "parish" of eastcotts 94.194.31.200 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In English, that would mean five main stresses per line, but few constraints as to where the stresses fall within the line. Old English alliterative verse sometimes approximated towards free tetrameter, though with constraints on the initial consonants of stressed words... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to build on that a bit: the pentameter part refers to there being five stressed syllables in the line and the free part refers to the line(s) not having a particular rhythm to it. This would be in contrast to meters like iambic pentameter (i.e. the form now often identified with Shakespeare), which detail the exact pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables. Matt Deres (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Arthur Wagner "Wagner had a lifelong opposition to the consecration of Anglican churches, on the basis that this would "[give] an opening for the State to intervene in their affairs". This view was shared by many Tractarians. On one occasion he complained to Richard Durnford, Bishop of Chichester, that consecration was "a farce". Pusey supported Wagner in his attempts to leave his newly built churches unconsecrated, but to no avail". What opening to the State would consecration give, beyond that already provided by the established status of the Church? Are any CofE churches unconsecrated (as opposed to deconsecrated)? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy links: Church of England Consecration Consecration in Christianity Edward Bouverie Pusey Richard Durnford Tractarians
I saw a similar argument about Keble College chapel. According to The Encyclopaedia of Oxford, in a characteristic attempt to keep the college out of the grasp of those whose views might be alien, the council refused to have the chapel consecrated, much to the fury of the then BISHOP OF OXFORD; it remains unconsecrated to this day.[1]: 207 TSventon (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: The local bishop would have had more rights over a consecrated church than over an unconsecrated proprietary chapel. I haven't found any recent sources, but A Practical Treatise on the Law Relating to the Church and Clergy (Henry William Cripps, 1886) says as is said by Lord Coke , as the church is a place dedicated and consecrated to the service of God , and is common to all the inhabitants , it therefore belongs to the bishop to order it in such manner as the service of God may best be celebrated on page 400 and has a section on proprietary chapels on pages 153 and 154. TSventon (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in historical artifacts and buildings you see a deep interlinking of art and function, bridges, light poles and buildings are brimming with art. Why did we heavily reduce this? My guess is that business contributed to art as a pr move and with the advent of the printing press it stopped making economic sense. What do you think? Bastard Soap (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain, outdoor advertising was based on hoardings (billboards): England 1835, by John Orlando ParryBillboard#History has a reference for flyposting in the late 15th century, reasonably hot on the heels of moveable type. Beyond that, the lag in moving to full-blown advertising is mysterious, but advances in printing must be relevant. History_of_advertising#16th–19th_centuries says "Advances in printing allowed retailers and manufacturers to print handbills and trade cards. For example, Jonathon Holder, a London haberdasher in the 1670s, gave every customer a printed list of his stock with the prices affixed. At the time, Holder's innovation was seen as a 'dangerous practice' and an unnecessary expense for retailers." But further down the page there's this nice picture of public artwork from 1835. Giant version here, because I couldn't read it all properly in our version. Card Zero (talk)22:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that PR is an adequate explanation. Consider Crossness Pumping Station (built 1859-1865) by local government in London. It wasn't a private business trying to drum up income, because it had a monopoly on everybody's sewage, and it didn't need PR because London was desperate to get rid of the stuff. It wasn't even a public building (in the sense that members of the public needed to visit it). Yet it was decorated on the outside, and crazy decorated inside.
This article, Ornament and Decoration, says that the Modernist movement of the first years of the 20th-century rejected ornamentation in architecture and other fields, taking the example of Viennese architect Adolf Loos and his 1908 essay, Ornament and Crime:
Adolf Loos campaigned to strip the ornament from language, from dress, and from dwelling. “I have freed mankind from superfluous ornament,” he bragged. “‘Ornament’ was once the synonym for ‘beauty’. Today, thanks to my life’s work, it is a synonym for ‘inferior’.” Espousing a middle-class ethos of functionalism, economic rationality, impersonality, and restraint, modernists redirected investment from luxury expenditures to factories, sanitary facilities, and municipal infrastructures. In place of individual expression they advocated standardized solutions, naked structures, white walls, and crisp geometric forms.
I wondered what the "crime" was. His article says:
"the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use." It was therefore a crime to force craftsmen or builders to waste their time on ornamentation that served to hasten the time when an object would become obsolete (design theory). Loos's stripped-down buildings influenced the minimal massing of modern architecture, and stirred controversy.
I have some questions about this.
Does therefore really belong? It would make sense in the opposite direction, rational efficient building is removing ornament -> evolution of culture is removing ornament, but doesn't seem to follow the other way round, as presented.
I question his premises. If ornamentation really causes obsolescence (by adversely affecting the function of an object) it must therefore be more than mere decoration (which by definition is not functional). The only way I can understand ornamentation causing 'obsolescence' is by going out of fashion. The decoration of Tower Bridge is well out of fashion, but that does not make the bridge obsolete.
I couldn't guess with certainty, since Brutalism has its fans and protectors due to its historical interest (reminiscent of the scene in Futurama where there is a concert of classical hip-hop, and how "modern art" is now over 100 years old). Besides, out-of-date ornament may have caused buildings to look offensive in the past, before the notion of "heritage". Certainly in Georgian England there was great destruction of Tudor architecture because everything had to be "improved", meaning neoclassical or approximately Parisian. Card Zero (talk)16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read a story online in which a Greek woman in the 1950s was almost tricked to being trafficked to a harem in the Arabian Peninsula, after answering an job advertisement in a newspaper. I remember hearding similar stories when I read about white slavery.
Certain athentic cases of European women dissapearing in the Muslim world, such as Gunnel Gummeson, have been speculated to be victims of such kidnappings.
I wonder: are there actual historic cases when European women where known to be kidnapped to harems in that time period? And how probable was it?
Some people have called sutch stories propaganda. But it is factual that Africa women where kidnapped to become slave concubines in harems in the Gulf in that time period (slavery in Saudi Arabia was still legal). So if African women where subjected to this fate, why not European woman? Are there known cases? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realise it is logical and reasonable to assume that there where such cases. Chattel slavery was indeed both legal and in full practice in most Gulf states in the 1950s.
But I am interested in the particular time period of the decades around the 1950s: before the fall of the Societ Union, when modern sex trafficking from Eastern Europe became rampant. Where there such cases in the Interwar period, and the 1950s? It is that particular time period I am interested in. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended. And in the cited modern source (it's misleadingly 3 citations to the same state department report), simply listing countries means nothing -- working through them, you'll see most countries are tier 2 and below, and it seems all will be listed as 2 or more of source, transit, and destination for trafficking. I'm not disputing the problem of trafficking -- I'm asserting that your statements are unsupported.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended", since legal chattel slavery in Saudi Arabia and Yemen ended in 1962, slavery in Kuwait in 1949, slavery in Dubai in 1963, and slavery in Oman in 1970 - and it is well documented that all of these countries certainly still had chattel slaves until the very year of legal emancipation (I have studied that issue).
However, my specific question is: are there known cases when European women where abducted to be used for sexual slavery (slave concubinage being legal) in harems on the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s? This was a particular time period: prior to the fall of the Soviet East Communist Block, when sex trafficking became rampant. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the point is that slaves in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Dubai and Oman were not slaves in the Ottoman Empire after it ended since even if they were part of the Ottoman Empire before, they no longer were. Even slaves in Turkey would not be slaves in the Ottoman Empire. More generally, the slave trade would likely have been significantly affected by the fall of the empire. New routes would likely need to have been developed, and sources may not have been so willing to provide slaves to lesser powers. (Remember this was before any of them became rich and powerful via oil money, I mean a number of them weren't even the modern day states that they are now at the time.) Also the end of the Ottoman Empire didn't happen in a vacuum, WW1 and other related events would likely have significantly affected the trade even of the empire had survived. So while clearly slavery didn't end, it's likely it was quite different from what it was before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have studied the issue, and the slave trade and use of slaves where not much affected in the Arabian Peninsula by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the question of the post: is it confirmed that European women where trafficked to the harems in the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s or around that time? --Aciram (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
fr.wikipedia says on that "Le 29 juin 1572, une première ordonnance du Parlement, l'Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, impose que chaque troupe de comédiens soit sous le patronage d'un noble ou de deux édiles" ["On June 29, 1572, a first ordinance of Parliament, the Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, required that each troupe of actors be under the patronage of a nobleman or two aediles"] but en.wikipedia write on that "the Mayor and Corporation of London first banned plays in 1572 as a measure against the plague".
These two statements are said to be the origin of the birth of theatres in London.
Can you tell me which one is correct or give me more information? Already thanks, Égoïté (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC) - sorry for my bad english ![reply]
Probably both are correct.
The Act of Parliament would have applied throughout England and Wales, and governed existing (and future) acting companies, which might have travelled around the country performing in public, and/or performed at private houses of rich patrons, or had a fixed venue (see for example Red Lion (theatre)).
The ban on performances by the authorities in London (followed by their expulsion of 'players' entirely in 1575 – see also The Theatre#History) applied to the City of Londononly, which occupied (as it still does) an area of about one square mile or so on the north bank of the Thames. These measures prompted theatre companies to move to, and build theatres in, the district of Southwark on the south bank of the Thames (across London Bridge) where the City of London had no authority. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remember the name of that Dalit/lower caste Hindu rape victim who was from a movie (not in English). She became a MP and was assassinated over legal case. What was her name? Maybe she was Buddhist since she was from near Nepal. Sportsnut24 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The article has various hints, such as "the US is negotiating with Lebanon’s government - rather than Hezbollah." I gather you're interested in the "Official responses are expected within hours" part? Card Zero (talk)14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is kind of a weird one, but during the WWII Battle of the Atlantic, are there any known instances of navy sailors collecting and eating some or all of the fish that were killed by depth charges they dropped?
Members of the crew of HMAS Doomba with fish taken on board killed or stunned after a depth charge attack. HMAS Doomba in her role as escort and anti-submarine vessel would sweep the harbour approaches with her ASDIC before escorting a convoy to sea and attack any threatening ASDIC returns with depth charges.
Note that once at sea with a convoy, stopping for any reason would leave an escort vessel vulnerable to attack and the convoy's merchant ships unescorted. From 1941, there were convoy rescue ships which saved escorts from having to stop to pick up survivors, so I imagine that stopping to catch stunned fish would be highly unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search term "Кондак усопших" does not turn up any results from the Russian Wikipedia. The kontakion is mentioned in this Russian news article on the funeral service for Prince Philip, which also provides an answer to the "why" question — allegedly because Philip wanted to emphasize his kinship with the Romanovs. The Russian term for Parents’ Sabbath is Родительская суббота, which is more adequately translated as "Parental Saturday", of which there are several in any given year. The Russian Wikipedia has an article on Parental Saturdays, which is skimpy on the liturgy and does not mention any songs. --Lambiam06:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, many thanks for your work. I'll put in a link to that article. The Kontakion of the Departed has a long history in British royal funerals, and I suspect it might have been used even if Philip hadn't had Orthodox roots (his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, was an Orthodox nun; I think the Romanov link is rather tenuous but useful to Russian nationalists). Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Magistrates charged Williams with defacing clothing[Note 1]—a crime that in the Bloody Code carried a harsher penalty than assault or attempted murder."
I don't know the answer, but the two statements are not at odds with each other. Theoretically (given just these two statements), the penalty for an attempt to strangle a person could have been a slap on the wrist, provided that the clothing of the victim was not defaced. --Lambiam06:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, there was a sharp distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. The former category consisted of “serious” crimes punishable by death or transportation; the latter were relatively milder offenses punishable by prison, the pillory, or a public flogging. Grand larceny, for example, was a felony; minor larceny a misdemeanor. More than two hundred crimes were punishable by death, but the felons often received a pardon. Murderers were of course hanged, as were hardened thieves, highwaymen, and street robbers; other felons were most often transported to a prison colony abroad. Common assault, even with intent to maim or kill, was a misdemeanor, and Williams and his friends had hoped that the Monster’s crimes would be categorized as such.
But, on the other hand the authorities were hard pressed to find a legal statute that made the Monster’s crime a felony, since they feared a public outrage in London if he was charged with a mere misdemeanor...
But the magistrates and judges had discovered an obscure statute from 1721. It had been intended to repress the activities of certain weavers who objected to the importation of Indian fashions that were purchased by the public in preference to the weavers’ own goods. The weavers actually poured aquafortis on the clothes of people wearing these foreign fashions. To stop these outrages, it was made a felony, punishable by transportation for seven years, to "assault any person in the public streets, with intent to tear, spoil, cut, burn, or deface, the garments or cloaths of such person, provided the act be done in pursuance of such intention."
— Bondeson, Jan (2001). The London Monster. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 85.
The reputation of Philip II of Spain, an actor of the counter-reformation, for rigor in religious, political and social matters leads me to ask this question: Could you give me the reason why Philip II of Spain decided to authorize in 1565 the creation of permanent brotherhoods with buildings for the representation of comedies?
This information appears in various places including this one
I am looking for reliable sources. Thank you already for your answer. Égoïté (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) (sorry for my bad english)[reply]
Don't have an answer, but there seems to be some academic literature on the topic. You might find something in: Suárez García, José Luis. “La licitud del teatro en el reinado de Felipe II. Textos y pretextos”, XXI Jornadas de Teatro Clásico. Almagro, 1998, pp. 219-251. Fut.Perf.☼10:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_from_Plates_illustrative_of_the_researches_and_operations_in_Egypt_and_Nubia_(1820).jpg)
Thank you, question answered. — Alien 3
