Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:03, 18 December 2024

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

December 4

Subnational laws

In all federations, are there laws that differ between subdivisions, such as states, provinces, cantons or parts of countries like Bosnia-Hertzegovina or Belgium? Are there any laws that are dedicated to provinces of Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Germany or Austria, or cantons of Switzerland? And in countries like US, Canada or Australia, are there any local laws that differ between local governments? --40bus (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to a number of relevant articles at State law... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure I'm a big fan of that page. It has one blue link, to US state law. All the other links are red, and many are to titles that would not naturally exist at all, unless maybe as redirects-from-misnomers or something. For example state law (Germany)? What's that? The German Länder are not called "states". --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I went ahead and searched, and to my bemusement our article on the Länder is at states of Germany. Hmm. I don't think that's a good title. I've always heard them called Länder, untranslated. They're broadly analogous to US states, I suppose, but not really the same thing.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at Law of Texas in order to verify if its specifical statutes visibly differ from the German cases where the concept of Succession of states comes into question: following analyses exposed in de:Land (Deutschland) in German Wikipedia. "Succession of states" as discussed in that last article has a focus probably more highly contrasted in matter of "rights and obligations" than would apply to U.S. States. In the case of Texas law for example I note the importance of Common law as a defining influence, whereas in German law the same unifying level is rooted very differently. I imagine that the american linguistic pluralism at root also implies some repercussions in classes of problems turning to the inside rather than to abroad. Consequently perhaps the specific problems that appear and were shown in the idea of Secession. --Askedonty (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Askedonty: I'm really having trouble following that. What are you trying to figure out here? Is it about whether Land is reasonably translated as "state" in the sense that it's used in "US state"? If it is, I don't really follow the argument; I'm not even sure whether you're arguing for or against. If it's not then I'm even more confused. --Trovatore (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia define the U.S.A. as a "föderal aufgebaute Republik" which is absolutely similar to the German "Bundesrepublik". To anybody there is a strange feeling at equating "State" with "Land" so I do not see what reluctance there has to be seeing there is an explanation for it. --Askedonty (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~No reluctance;~~ I just wanted to understand better the structure of your argument. It was a little hard to figure out what you were getting at. --Trovatore (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually now I'm not sure about the "no reluctance" part, because on re-reading "I do not see what reluctance there has to be", I don't actually understand what that means either.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. "Länder" means that Germans living there might be have their families rooted there for ages. I do not think that aspect can be translated without some circumlocutions. --Askedonty (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In several languages, the usual term for a Land of the FRG uses a part that is cognate to state. For example: Basque Alemaniako estatuak (pl), Danish Tysklands delstater (pl), Italian Stati federati della Germania (pl); Spanish Estado federado (Alemania). When used for a specific Land and no confusion with the sense of "federal state" can occur, this is often simplified, as in Italian lo stato di Baden-Württemberg.^[1][2][3] --Lambiam 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the subdivisions have separate legislatures, there are bound to be differences. --Lambiam 22:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original question asks in countries like US...are there any local laws that differ.... In the US, "local" usually means city or county level. This will vary from state to state, but typically city and county laws are called "ordinances" and regulate comparatively lesser matters than state law (state law handles almost all one-on-one violent crime, for example). City ordinances tend to be about things like how often you have to mow your lawn or whether you can drink alcohol in public. Violations are usually "infractions" with relatively light penalties (though fines can be fairly heavy in some cases, like for removing a tree that you're not supposed to remove in Woodside, California). --Trovatore (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the USA, Australia is a federation of states, so it has federal (national) laws, state level laws, and municipality based laws. The latter are like city laws in the US, but not all our towns are called cities. Unlike the USA, our constitution is primarily about what states are responsible for and what the federal government is responsible for. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with most things in the US, the distinction (if any) between "town" and "city" varies state-to-state. I'm most familiar with California, which has no official legal distinction, but the municipality in question can call itself "town" or "city" as it pleases, usually depending on whether it wants to give the suggestion that it's semi-rural (see Town of Los Altos Hills). Completely different are the New England towns, which I don't know much about except what I've read in Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution does, in fact, delineate the powers of states and of the federal government. American states are not "subdivisions", they are separate entities which joined the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many subdivisions of current sovereign states, all over the world, were at some time themselves independent sovereign states that later gave up their sovereignty, sometimes not entirely voluntarily, and joined a larger entity. The USA is not exceptional. --Lambiam 09:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American states have not given up their sovereignty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't they apply for UN membership? Too much effort? --Lambiam 03:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different concept of sovereignty. The theory of sovereignty in much of the world is that it has to be unique; there is only one sovereign at a given place and time. The US, at least historically, explicitly rejects that idea, embracing divided sovereignty instead. --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, recognized Indian tribes in the U.S. also have partial sovereignty, their own courts, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Readers who want to know more about this can check out our article on tribal sovereignty in the United States. Lots of interesting complications if you like that sort of thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam -- In the second half of the 1940s, when Stalin was arranging things so that the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR had separate memberships in the United Nations (distinct from the Soviet Union's overall membership), he offered to agree to several U.S. states being admitted to the U.N. but the U.S. didn't take him up on it. AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Wow. Which states in particular were OK with Uncle Joe? Or was it just a number, let the states play musical chairs for it? --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas, Texas, Texas, Texas and Texas. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it didn't get that far (probably stayed within the Truman White House and State Department), since it would have been a violation of the U.S. Constitution ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power"). AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the U.S. is at the extreme of how much laws about rather important matters vary from one jurisdiction to another: at the state level, differences include: whether or not there is a death penalty and (if so) under what circumstances it can be applied; whether cannabis is legal, and almost everything about its regulation (and more or less the same about alcohol, though no state currently has an outright ban); what is the minimum wage (defaulting to the federal minimum wage if the state does not pass its own); almost everything to do with education; almost everything about how elections are run. Also, since Dobbs, pretty much everything about abortion. In some areas, federal law reliably trumps state law, but not in everything (there is relatively little the federal government can do to prevent a state from passing a criminal law, other than either challenge it as unconstitutional or threaten to withhold funds unless they change it).

U.S. states usually have more ability to limit what smaller jurisdictions can do, so they can preempt local ordinances (usually the term, rather than "laws", at the city/town/etc. level, but just as enforceable). Still, often they don't do that, even in ways where you'd think they would. Where I live in Washington state, the minimum wage varies from county to county and city to city, with the state setting only a "minimum minimum". And it gets even more confusing because, for example, King County sets a minimum wage for unincorporated areas of the county, with incorporated communities able to go higher or lower. In Texas, the legality of selling alcohol is a "local option" patchwork. And sovereignty gets trickier in terms of Indian reservations, hence the "Indian casinos" even in states where gambling is otherwise illegal.

And, yeah, that's just more about the U.S., but I think people from elsewhere have trouble imagining what a patchwork it is here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Mexico: I know Mexico City legalized gay marriage years before the rest of the country. But if we have a decent article on federalism in Mexico, I haven't seen it.

In Spain, Catalonia semi-legalized cannabis (allowing "cannabis clubs"); there has been a bit of a fight back and forth with the central government over whether they can do that. And, of course, in Spain each autonomous community makes its own decisions about much of the educational system (which often involves laws) and most have opted to have responsibility for a health system devolved to them, though some have chosen not to take that on. For more on Spain, you can look at Autonomous communities of Spain#Constitutional and statutory framework. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

BAA

BAA ambiguous meaning in context of aviation in UK, could you please check the discussion here 🙏 Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 07:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gryllida This is the humanities reference desk. Do you have a question on humanities? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 10:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gryllida, next time, I would suggest copying the question you want answered from Wikinews, rather than expecting people here to work out what you want to know.

As Wikinews has sources, I suggest checking them, e.g. The Guardian says BAA, which runs six UK airports, so in 2010 BAA [plc] was a company that ran six UK airports. TSventon (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try BAA (disambiguation)? —Tamfang (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UK politics/senate

Hi, is this factually accurate link Thanks. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 10:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scipion-Virginie Hébert (1793-1830)

Block evasion

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

The only daughter of Jacques-René Hébert was a repubblican, bonapartist, or royalist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.174.231 (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This brief biography in French says that she was adopted as a one-year-old by an old associate of her father called Jacques Marquet who educated her with the aim of her becoming a schoolmistress. She maried a Protestant pastor called Léon Née (1784-1856) and both became leading figures in the pré-Réveil (we have an article on the Réveil which was an 1814 Protestant revival in France and Switzerland). They had five children, three of whom died early. She was later the vice-president of a society that gave Bibles to newly married couples. No mention of politics, but it seems that her interests were on a higher plane. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you if there are sources about her political ideas? 193.207.166.191 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are none. You can build hypotheses based on the facts that a) her father, Jacques-René Hébert was a promoter of the Cult of Reason, yet considering Jesus Christ a Sans-culotte (Jacques Hébert#Dechristianization, une religion sans base, fille d'aucune foi, ne procédant d'aucune révélation ) b) it is known that when she was two years old around her beside Jacques Marquet: "The child is surrounded by his uncle, Jacques Goupil, an invalid officer, Pierre Theuvenot, a ironmonger of the rue du Temple (section of Reunion), by Jean-Baptiste Gaignot, employed in the national domains, of the Guillaume Tell section, of Pierre-François Coignard, employee of the National Treasury, living in rue Denis, of his neighbour Joseph Barat, of Pierre François Joseph Guérin, printer in the rue du Temple, all sans-culottes friends of the family – the Revolution visibly offered many places in the New administrations, social advancement", c) she became an assistant teacher. --Askedonty (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Sans-culottes were not keen on any branch of Christianity, see Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, so it seems unlikely that she would have followed her parents' political path. Protestants in France were a small minority that had been persecuted under successive monarchs before the Revolution. Alansplodge (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this related blog is the opinion that Jacques Marquet himself might have been, at least, leaning toward protestantism. And the circumstances that are related are certainly convincing. --Askedonty (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

Provenance of some sculptures

There are a bunch of reliefs worked into the wall of the garden (rear) side of the former Casa Storck, now Frederic Storck and Cecilia Cuțescu-Storck Museum, in Bucharest. I can't tell whether they are older pieces collected by Frederic Storck (he certainly collected a number of such pieces; some are in the museum) or his own work, or a mix of the two. Clearly for some of these, if they are his own work they would have been imitative of older styles, but he was enough of a chameleon at times that I would not rule that out. (I had originally presumed they were all his, but I'm having second thoughts.) Wondering if anyone might know something more solid than I do; there is nothing in particular about this I've been easily able to find, except that they seem to date back at least very close to the origin of the building (1910s).

Several more here

Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given my uncertainty, I've put these in a new commons:Category:Unidentified works in the Frederic and Cecilia Cuțescu Storck Museum that does not imply authorship by Frederic Storck. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one with an idea on any of these? - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Jacques Danton

Block evasion.

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

Are there any sites with the full biographies of their two sons Antoine (1790-1858) and François Georges (1792-1848)?

An article in French can be found here. You'll need to access it through a library. Their basic biographical details are also available on various genealogy sites, but I expect you're looking for more than just that. Xuxl (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you search for others? Thank you. 87.5.237.18 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

Why did Pippi Longstocking end up never getting married in her adulthood?

AKA her actress, Inger Nilsson. A lot of suitors would admire famous actresses and trample on each other to have a chance to court them, so a lot of actors and actresses end up getting married, but how come Pippi's actress never got married nor had kids after growing into an adult? --2600:100A:B032:25F0:1D7A:CC5D:1FC2:21E2 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know for certain that she wasn't/isn't married and/or has children? If so, from what source?

Some actors do not choose to make their private life public, so perhaps she was/is and does, and if not, many people (including my elderly single self) are simply not interested in getting married and/or having children. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's still among the living, so maybe you could find a way to contact her, and ask her that nosy question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If she really could "lift her horse one-handed", I suspect even male fellow equestrians would be very wary suitors. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an adult, she has chosen to keep her private life private.^[4] So be it. --136.56.165.118 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that famous actresses actually try to avoid suitors that admire famous actresses. They don't want to marry someone who is in love with a fake public persona created by the PR department of a studio. Not only actors and actresses, but also a lot of bakers, chemists, dentists, engineers and so on do end up getting married. Being famous does not help. --Lambiam 13:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine she particularly would not welcome suitors who admired her as a preteen. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

Petosiris of Arabia

The rendering of פטסרי as Petosiris seems to take inspiration from the far-flung. Is this the same name? If osiris is Osiris, what's the pt pt? Temerarius (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source to which this is cited has throughout Peṭosriris. However, the transcription of Briquel-Chatonnet has pṭsry. Roche states the name means « qu’Osiris a donné ».^[5] --Lambiam 18:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but wouldn't « qu’Osiris a donné » require פת?

Temerarius (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

Tribes and inceldom

One common saying in incel subcultures is that women are "programmed" to only have relationships with the 20% top men. This appears to be consistent (o at least not contradicted by) this phrase in the polygamy article: "More recent genetic data has clarified that, in most regions throughout history, a smaller proportion of men contributed to human genetic history compared to women."

Then again, while I've heard of modern tribes with weird marriage practices (for example the Wodaabe or the Trobriand people) I've never heard of tribes where 70% of men die virgins. Is there any tribe/society where something like that happens? (I realize that modern tribes are by definition different to Paleolithic tribes)90.77.114.87 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read in the past, it seems that hunter-gatherer cultures over the last 50,000 years ago probably tended to be mildly polygynous -- that is, certain men, due to their personalities and demonstrated skills, managed to attract more than one woman at a time into a relationship with them. (Usually a small number -- some men having large numbers of wives is associated more with agricultural civilizations, and women there could often have less freedom of choice than women in hunter-gatherer groups.) Everybody of both sexes is likely to be most attracted to high-status individuals, but under hunter-gatherer conditions, women also need help with child-rearing, which factors into their mating strategies. AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Under the classic anthropological band-tribe-chiefdom-state classification system (on Wikipedia, covered in the vaguely named Sociopolitical typology article), most historical hunter-gatherer cultures were "bands", while the Wodaabe and Trobriand people sound more like "tribes". AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth remembering, though: who has "sanctioned" relationships is not necessarily equivalent to who actually has sex. - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said (in mammals at least) that each 5% difference in mass for males means that their harem (zoology) has one more female. The sexual dimorphism#Humans article says that human males are 15% heavier that the females (previously I had heard 20%), suggesting that the harem-holder has three mates (or 4, if the 20% is correct). But this does not mean that 75% of human males never had sex. Firstly, holding a harem is a dangerous, short term job if other animals are any guide, with the harem master regularly killed or overthrown. Secondly, in current polygynous human cultures and in polygynous animals, there is a huge amount of cheating. Evidence from animals shows that when females cheat, they are statistically more likely to produce offspring from that mating than from a mating with their main male. Abductive (reasoning) 11:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful that there were commonly "harems" at any stage of human evolution which is very relevant to modern human behavior. Gorillas have moderate harems of often around 3 or 4 females (as opposed to elephant seals, which commonly have a harem size in the thirties). Robust Australopithecines may have been similar, but modern humans are not descended from them. What we know about attested hunter-gatherer societies strongly suggests that during the last 50,000 years or so (since Behavioral modernity) the majority of men who had wives had one wife, but some exceptional men were able to attract 2 or 3 women at a time into relationships. Men having large numbers of wives (real harems) wasn't too feasible until the rise of social stratification which occurred with the development of agriculture. AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that? Because the same evidence is that prior to 50,000 years ago, humans did have harems. Abductive (reasoning) 20:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we find this evidence? --Lambiam 08:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Recent Shift from Polygyny to Monogamy in Humans Is Suggested by the Analysis of Worldwide Y-Chromosome Diversity. Abductive (reasoning) 14:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scattering in US elections

What does scattering mean in the context of US elections? Examples: 1944 United_States presidential election in California#Results 1886 United States House of Representatives elections#Mississippi. Searching mostly produces Electron scattering, which is not the same thing at all! Is there (or should there be) an article or section that could be linked? Cavrdg (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the source for Frederick G. Berry in the 1886 election, then on Scattering on the following page, it says it's for those with "No Party Affiliation". Clarityfiend (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably from the phrase "a scattering of votes" (i.e. for other candidates than those listed)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the intended word is "smattering". Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

Shopping carts

Where were the first shopping carts introduced?

shopping cart and Sylvan Goldman say the Humpty Dumpty chain
Piggly Wiggly says the Piggly Wiggly chain and quotes the Harvard Business Review

Both articles agree it was in 1937 in Oklaholma. I believe that Humpty Dumpty is more likely, but some high quality sources would be useful. TSventon (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a matter of some dispute, but Guide to the Telescoping Shopping Cart Collection, 1946-1983, 2000 by the Smithsonian Institution has the complex details of the dispute between Sylvan Goldman [of Humpty Dumpty] and Orla Watson. No mention of Piggly Wiggly, but our article on Watson notes that in 1946, he donated the first models of his cart to 10 grocery stores in Kansas City.

The Illustrated History of American Military Commissaries (p. 205) has both Watson and Goldman introducing their carts in 1947 (this may refer to carts that telescope into each other for storage, a feature apparently lacking in Goldman's first model).

Scalable Innovation: A Guide for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and IP Professionals says that Goldman's first cart was introduced to Humpty Dumty in 1937.

Make of that what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I remember that the power lift arrangement mentioned in the Smithsonian's link was still an object of analysis for would-be inventors in the mid-sixties, and possibly later, even though the soon to be ubiquituous checkout counter conveyor belt was very much ready making it unnecessary. Couldn't help curiously but think about those when learning about Bredt's rule at school later, see my user page, but it's true "Bredt" sounded rather like "Bread" in my imagination. --Askedonty (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing shopping carts referenced in Portland, Oregon in 1935 or earlier, and occasionally illustrated, at a store called the Public Market; and as far as the term itself is concerned, it goes back to at least the 1850s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But perhaps referring to a cart brought by the shopper to carry goods home with, rather than one provided by the storekeeper for use in-store? Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge, Askedonty, and Baseball Bugs: thank you for your help, it seems that the Harvard Business Review is mistaken and the Piggly Wiggly chain did not introduce the first shopping baskets, which answers my question. The shopping cart article references a paper by Catherine Grandclément, which shows that several companies were selling early shopping carts in 1937, so crediting Sylvan Goldman alone is not the whole story. TSventon (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilacs/flowers re: Allies in Europe WWII

At 53:20 in Dunkirk (1958 film), British soldiers talk about [paraphrasing] 'flowers on the way into Belgium, raspberries on the way out', and specifically reference lilacs. I imagine this was very clear to 1958 audiences, but what is the significance of lilacs? Is it/was it a symbol of Belgium? Valereee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just that the BEF entered Belgium in the Spring, which is lilac time. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are contemporary reports of the streets being strewn with lilac blossom. See here "Today the troops crossed the frontier along roads strewn with flowers. Belgian girls, wildly enthusiastic, plucked lilac from the wayside and scattered it along the road to be torn and twisted by the mighty wheels of the mechanised forces." DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That would explain it, thanks! Valereee (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

The USA adding a new state

If my understanding is correct, the following numbers are valid at present: (a) number of Senators = 100; (b) number of Representatives = 435; (c) number of electors in the Electoral College = 538. If the USA were to add a new state, what would happen to these numbers? Thank you. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of senators would increase by 2, and the number of representatives would probably increase by at least 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, to answer the final question, the minimum number of Electors would be 3… more if the new state has more Representatives (based on population). Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, there would be extra people in congress. The 86th United States Congress had 437 representatives, because Alaska and Hawaii were granted one upon entry regardless of the apportionment rules. Things were smoothed down to 435 at the next census, two congresses later. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me re-phrase my question. (a) The number of Senators is always 2 per State, correct? (b) The number of Representatives is what? Is it "capped" at 435 ... or does it increase a little bit? (c) The number of Electors (per State) is simply a function of "a" + "b" (per State), correct? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it is indeed capped at 435, though Golbez brings up a point I hadn't taken into account -- apparently it can go up temporarily when states are added, until the next reapportionment. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that (b) would probably depend on whether the hypothetical new state was made up of territory previously part of one or more existing states, or territory not previously part of any existing state. And I suspect that the eventual result would not depend on any pre-calculable formula, but on cut-throat horsetrading between the two main parties and other interested bodies. {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's capped at 435. See Reapportionment Act of 1929. (I had thought it was fixed in the Constitution itself, but apparently not.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other refinement. The formula you've given for number of electors is correct, for states. But it leaves out the District of Columbia, which gets as many electors as it would get if it were a state, but never ~~less~~ more than those apportioned to the smallest state. In practice that means DC gets three electors. That's why the total is 538 instead of 535. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Oops; I remembered the bit about the smallest state wrong. It's actually never more than the smallest state. Doesn't matter in practice; still works out to 3 electors for the foreseeable future, either way, because DC would get 3 electors if it were a state, and the least populous state gets 3. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

December 13

economics: coffee prices question

in news report "On Tuesday, the price for Arabica beans, which account for most global production, topped $3.44 a pound (0.45kg), having jumped more than 80% this year. " [6] how do they measure it? some other report mention it is a commodity price set for trading like gold silver etc. what is the original data source for this report? i checked a few other news stories and did not find any clarification about this point, they just know something that i don't. thank you in advance for your help. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gryllida, they seem to be talking about the "Coffee C" contract in the List of traded commodities. The price seems to have peaked and then fallen a day later

explanation here
I googled "coffee c futures price chart" and the first link was uk.investing.com which I can't link here
if you have detailed questions about futures contracts they will probably go over my head. TSventon (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i see the chart which you cannot link here. why did it peak and then drop shortly after? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Financial markets tend to have periods of increase followed by periods of decrease (bull and bear markets), see market trend for background. TSventon (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source for an order of precedence for abbotts

Hi friends. The article for Ramsey Abbey in the UK refers to an "order of precedence for abbots in Parliament". (Sourced to an encyclopedia, which uses the wording "The abbot had a seat in Parliament and ranked next after Glastonbury and St. Alban's"). Did a ranking/order of precedence exist and if yes where can it be found? Presumably this would predate the dissolution of monasteries in england. Thanks.70.67.193.176 (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abbots called to parliament were called "Mitred Abbots" although not all were entitled to wear a mitre. Our Mitre article has much the same information as you quote, and I suspect the same citations. The only other reference I could find, also from an encyclopedia;

Of the abbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence till A.D. 1154, when Pope Adrian IV, an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St. Alban's. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading had the third place.

A Church Dictionary: A Practical Manual of Reference for Clergymen and Students (p. 2)

Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources differ on the order. There is a list published in 1842 of 26 abbots as "generally ... reckoned" in order here

The Church History of Britain Volume 2 (p.182) TSventon (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the proposed Trump tariffs a regressive tax in disguise?

I'm wondering if there has been analysis of this. The US government gets the tariff money(?) and biggest chunk will be on manufactured goods from China. Those in turn are primarily consumer goods, which means that the tariff is something like a sales tax, a type of tax well known to be regressive. Obviously there are leaks in the description above, so one would have to crunch a bunch of numbers to find out for sure. But that's what economists do, right? Has anyone weighed in on this issue? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:327E (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many public comments about how this is a tax on American consumers. It's only "in disguise" to those who don't understand how tariffs work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see what I can find. Do you remember if the revenue collected is supposed to be enough for the government to care about? I.e. enough to supposedly offset the inevitable tax cuts for people like Elon Musk? 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:327E (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Import duties are extremely recessive in that (a) they are charged at the same rate for any given level of income; and (b) those with less income tend to purchase far more imported goods than those with more income (define “more” and “less” any way you wish). Fiscally, they border on insignificant, running an average of 1.4% of federal revenue since 1962 (or, 0.2% of GDP), compared to 47.1% (8.0%) for individual income tax and 9.9% (1.7%) for corporate tax receipts.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about your point (b); why would this be? It seems to me that as my income has risen I have probably bought more stuff from abroad, at least directly. It could well be that I've bought less indirectly, but I'm not sure why that would be. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More like, those with less income spend a larger fraction of their income on imported goods, instead of services. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, most daily use items are imported: toothbrushes, combs, kitchenware, shopping bags. Most durable goods are imported: phones, TVs, cars, furniture, sporting goods, clothes. These items are more likely to be imported because it is MUCH cheaper / more profitable to make them abroad. Wander through Target, Sam's Club, or Wal-Mart and you'll be hard pressed to find "Made in America" goods. But, in a hand-crafted shop, where prices have to reflect the cost of living HERE, rather than in Bangladesh, prices soar. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sure, but surely it's a fairly rare person of any income level who spends a significant portion of his/her income on artisanal goods. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PiusImpavidus, Every income strata (in America) spends far more on services than on goods. Services tend to be more of a repeated purchase: laundry (vs. washing machine), Uber (vs. car), rent (vs. purchase), internet (vs. books), etc. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron A. Dunn: Australian arachnologist

For Ronald Albert Dunn (Q109827858) I have given names of "Ron. A.", an address in 1958 of 60 Mimosa Road, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia S.E. 9 (he was also in Carnegie in 1948) and an uncited death date of 25 June 1972.

He was an Australian arachnologist with the honorifics AAA AAIS.

Can anyone find the full given names, and a source or the death date, please? What did the honorifics stand for? Do we know how he earned his living? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing Have you tried ancestry.com? For a start

A scan of the 1954 Carnegie electoral roll has

Dunn, Ronald Albert, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, accountant
Dunn, Gladys Harriet I, 60 Mimosa Road, S.E. 9, home duties

I can't check newspapers.com, but The Age apparently had a report about Ronald Albert Dunn on 27 Jun 1972 TSventon (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't have access to the former, but that's great. AAA seems to be (member of the) Association of Accountants of Australia: [7]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accessed Ancestry.com via the Wikipedia Library, so you should have access. Newspapers.com is also available via the library if you register, which I haven't. An editor with a Newspapers.com account would be able to make a clipping which anyone could access online.

I agree AAA is probably the Australian Society of Accountants, a predecessor of CPA Australia. They merged in 1953 (source) so the information would have been outdated in 1958. AAIS could be Associate [of the] Amalgamated Institute of Secretaries (source Who's Who in Australia, Volume 16, 1959 Abbreviations page 9). TSventon (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I tried, Ancestry wasn't working for WP-Lib users. Thank you again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a phabricator problem about loading a second page of results. My workaround is to try to add more information to the search to get more relevant results on the first page of results. TSventon (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request could help? Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#The Age (Melbourne) 27 June 1972. TSventon (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Schisms and Byzantine Roman self-perception

Did the three schisms between Rome and Constantinople tarnish Rome's reputation to the degree that it affected the Byzantine self-perception as the "Roman Empire" and as "Romans"? Including Constantinople's vision of succession to the Roman Empire and its notion of Second Rome. Brandmeister^talk 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various maneuverings in the middle ages (including the infamous Fourth Crusade) certainly gave many Byzantines a negative view of western Catholics, so that toward the end some frankly preferred conquest by Muslims to a Christian alliance which would involve Byzantine religious and political subordination to the European West (see discussion at Loukas Notaras). But the Byzantines generally considered themselves to be the real Romans, and called themselves "Romaioi" much more often than they called themselves Greek (of course, "Byzantine" is a later retroactive term). AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these religious schisms had nothing to do with the secular political situation. In 330, before Christianity became an established religion that could experience schisms, Constantine the Great moved the capital of the unitary Roman Empire from Rome to the city of Byzantium and dubbed it the New Rome – later renamed to Constantinople. During the later periods in which the Western and Eastern Roman Empire were administered separately, this was not considered a political split but an expedient way of administering a large polity, of which Constantinople remained the capital. So when the Western wing of the Roman Empire fell to the Ostrogoths and even the later Exarchate of Ravenna disappeared, the Roman Empire, now only administered by the Constantinopolitan court, continued in an unbroken succession from the Roman Kingdom and subsequent Republic. --Lambiam 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Ottoman Turkish, the term روم (Rum), ultimately derived from Latin Roma, was used to designate the Byzantine Empire, or, as a geographic term, its former lands. Fun fact: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmet the Conqueror and his successors claimed the title of Caesar of Rome, with the Ottoman Empire being the successor of the Byzantine Empire. IMO this claim has merit; Mehmet II was the first ruler of yet another dynasty, but rather than replacing the existing Byzantine administrative apparatus, he simply continued its use for the empire he had become the ruler of. If you recognize the claim, the Republic of Turkey is today's successor of the Roman Kingdom. --Lambiam 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottomans basically continued the Byzantine tax-collection system, for a while. AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Presidents/Heads of State CURRENTLY Buried in the USA

How many foreign presidents are CURRENTLY buried in the USA? (I am aware of previous burials that have since been repatriated) For example, In Woodlawn Cemetery in Miami, FL, there are two Cuban presidents and a Nicaraguan president.

Are there any other foreign presidents, heads of state, that are buried in the USA? Exeter6 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, all 4 of the presidents of the Republic of Texas are buried in Texas, which is currently in the US. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Domingo y Morales del Castillo was President of Cuba in 1954-55 and died in Miami. Not sure where he's buried though.

Also Anselmo Alliegro y Milá (President of Cuba for a few hours on January 1, 1959) similarly went to Florida and died there.

And Arnulfo Arias, ousted as President of Panama in the 1968 Panamanian coup d'état, died in Florida (a pattern emerging here...)

Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, the Woodlawn Cemetery in question is Caballero Rivero Woodlawn Park North Cemetery and Mausoleum, housing:

Gerardo Machado, president of Cuba from 1925 to 1933
Carlos Prío Socarrás, president of Cuba from 1948 to 1952
Anastasio Somoza Debayle, president of Nicaragua from 1967 to 1972, and from 1974 to 1979 (not to be confused with his father Anastasio Somoza García and brother Luis Somoza Debayle, both former presidents of Nicaragua, buried together in Nicaragua)

GalacticShoe (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Findagrave could be fruitful. Machado's entry:[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish prime minister and famous musician Ignacy Paderewski had his grave in the United States until 1992. AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not current, though... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some with the following Wikidata query: [9]. Some notable examples are Liliʻuokalani, Pierre Nord Alexis, Dương Văn Minh, Lon Nol, Bruno Carranza, Victoriano Huerta, and Mykola Livytskyi. Note that Alexander Kerensky died in the US but was buried in the UK. Unfortunately, the query also returns others who were presidents, governors, etc. of other than sovereign states. --Amble (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should also consider Jefferson Davis as a debatable case. And Peter II of Yugoslavia was initially buried in the USA but later reburied in Serbia. He seems to have been the only European monarch who was at one point buried in the USA. --Amble (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Quezon was initially buried at Arlington. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I should rather think that most monarchs of Hawaii are buried in the USA. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If burial was the custom there. (I'd guess it was, but I certainly don't know.) --142.112.149.206 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mausoleum (Mauna ʻAla) answers that question with a definitive "yes, it was". Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antanas Smetona was initially buried in Cleveland, but then reburied elsewhere in Ohio. --Amble (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, All Souls Cemetery in Chardon according to Smetona's article. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Egyptian mummies in US museums (List of museums with Egyptian mummies in their collections), but I can't find any that are currently known to be the mummy of a pharaoh. The mummy of Ramesses I was formerly in the US, but was returned to Egypt in 2003. --Amble (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Geographic extent of an English parish c. 1800

What would have been the typical extent (in square miles or square kilometers) of an English parish, circa 1800 or so? Let's say the median rather than the mean. With more interest in rural than urban parishes. -- Avocado (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were tensions involved in a unit based on the placement of churches being tasked to administer the poor law; that was why "civil parishes" were split off a little bit later... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado As a start the mean area of a parish in England and Wales in around 1832 seems to have been around 5.6 square miles.

Source The Edinburgh Encyclopædia Volume 8. It also has figures by county if you are interested.

p.494 38,498,572 acres, i.e. 60,154 square miles
p.497 10,674 parishes and parochial chapelries
Average 3,607 acres, i.e. 5.64 square miles TSventon (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- that's a starting point, at least! -- Avocado (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But regionally variable:

By the early nineteenth century the north-west of England, including the expanding cities of Manchester and Liverpool, had just over 150 parishes, each of them covering an average of almost 12,000 acres, whereas the more rural east of the country had more than 1,600 parishes, each with an average size of approximately 2,000 acres.

OCR A Level History: Britain 1603-1760

Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary , in England , which contains 38,500,000 statute acres, the parishes or livings comprehend about 3,850 acres the average; and if similar allowance be made for those livings in cities and towns , perhaps about 4,000.

An Essay on the Revenues of the Church of England (1816) p. 165

The point about urban parishes distorting the overall average is supported by St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate for instance, that had a parish of only 3 acres (or two football pitches of 110 yards by 70 yards placed side by side). [10] Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's great info -- ty! I can't seem to get a look at the content of the book. Does it say anything else about other regions? -- Avocado (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OCR book doesn't mention other regions. I have found where the figure of 10,674 came from: page 112 of the 1816 essay has a note that Preliminary Observations ( p . 13. and 15. ) to the Popu-lation Returns in 1811 ; where the Parishes and Parochial Chapelries are stated at 10,674 . The text of page 112 says that churches are contained in be-tween 10 , and 11,000 parishes † ; and probably after a due allowance for consolidations , & c . they constitute the Churches of about 10,000 Parochial Benefices, so the calculation on p.165 of the 1816 essay is based on around 10,000 parishes in England (and Wales) in 1800 (38,500,000 divided by 3,850). TSventon (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source is Abstract of the Answers and Returns Made Pursuant to an Act Passed in the Fifty-first Year of His Majesty King George III, Intituled, "An Act for Taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and of the Increase Or Diminution Thereof" : Preliminary Observations, Enumeration Abstract, Parish Register Abstract, 1811 and the table of parishes by county is on page xxix. TSventon (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When was the first bat mitzvah?

Bar and bat mitzvah has a short history section, all of which is about bar mitzvah. When was the first bat mitzvah? What is its history? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am more asking when the bat mitzvah ritual became part of common Jewish practice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parts from Google's translation of he:בת מצווה:

As early as the early 19th century, in the early days of Reform Judaism, confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls began to be held in which their knowledge of the religion was tested, similar to that practiced among Christians. It spread to the more liberal circles of German Jewry, and by the middle of the century had also begun to be widespread among the Orthodox bourgeoisie. Rabbi Jacob Etlinger of Altona was forced by the community's regulations to participate in such an event in 1867, and published the sermon he had prepared for the purpose later. He emphasized that he was obligated to do so by law, and that Judaism did not recognize that the principles of the religion should be adopted in such a public declaration, since it is binding from birth. However, as part of his attempt to stop the Reform, he supported a kind of parallel procedure that was intended to take place exclusively outside the synagogue.

The idea of confirmation was not always met with resistance, especially with regard to girls: the chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of French Jews, Shlomo Zalman Ullmann, permitted it for both sexes in 1843. In 1844, confirmation for young Jews was held for the first time in Verona, Italy. In the 1880s, Rabbi Zvi Hermann Adler agreed to the widespread introduction of the ceremony, after it had become increasingly common in synagogues, but refused to call it 'confirmation'. In 1901, Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor, cantor in Alexandria, permitted it for both boys and girls, inspired by what was happening in Italy. Other rabbis initially ordered a more conservative event.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude towards the bat mitzvah party was reserved, because it was sometimes an attempt to imitate symbols drawn from the confirmation ceremony, and indeed there were rabbis, such as Rabbi Aharon Volkin, who forbade the custom on the grounds of gentile laws, or who treated it with suspicion, such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who in a 1950s recantation forbade holding an event in the synagogue because it was "a matter of authority and a mere vanity...there is no point and no basis for considering it a matter of a mitzvah and a mitzvah meal". The Haredi community also expressed strong opposition to the celebration of the bat mitzvah due to its origins in Reform circles. In 1977, Rabbi Yehuda David Bleich referred to it as one of the "current problems in halakhah", noting that only a minority among the Orthodox celebrate it and that it had spread to them from among the Conservatives.

On the other hand, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, rabbis began to encourage holding a Bat Mitzvah party for a daughter, similar to a party that is customary for a son, with the aim of strengthening observance of the mitzvot among Jewish women.

--Lambiam 11:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Surprising how recent it is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 18